














'is A* * 







^-. co^v^^'\ ^/.-^i/^-., 0°^;^^%°- / 




* - ^ 'it. * 
^^ . t • o 












^/^<^- 














V-^' 



vO^' 








^^ ^^^^^•^i-\ y^'j^im:^^- /^-^-^ «^° 




















-^ • • * * A <► 



^ 



'V^/ 



'^**7^ 




f^/tlc^m^6 jPy/ ^&<^ 



<^ 



) 







^ ■ 




Oj^ 



THE 



INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION, 
ABOLITIONISM: 



AN ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE, 



IN PROOF OF THE POSITION 

THAT BELIEVING MASTERS OUGHT TO BE HONORED AND OBEYED 

BY THEIR OWN SERVANTS, AND 

TOLERATED IN, NOT EXCOMMUNICATED FROM, 

THE CHURCH OF GOD : 

BEING PART OF 

A SPEECH DELIVERED BEFORE THE SYNOD OF CINCINNATI, ON 

THE SUBJECT OF SLAVERY, 

SEPTEMBER 19TH AND 20TH, 1843. 



BY REV. GEORGE JUNKIN, D. D., 

President of Miami University, 



Cincinnati: 

PRINTED BY R. P. DONOGH, AT NO. 106, MAIN STREET: 

1843. 



^Y.^ 
r 



4%f 



Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1843. 
BY GEORGE JUi^KIIV, D. D., 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the State of Ohio. 



Orders for this pamphlet addressed to R. P. Donogu, Pub- 
lisher, No. lOG Main Street, Cincinnati, enclosing the Cash, 
and post paid, will be promptly attended to. 



Pricc^ ^150 per dozen. 






To Rev. Joshua L. Wilson^ D. i>., 

Rev. James C, Barnes^ 

Gen. Robt. B. 3HUi7dn, and C. K. Smith, Esq. 

Gentlemen: 

You were among the first of my friends, to solicit the publica- 
tion of that part, at least, of my argument before the Synod of Cincinnati, 
which went to shew, from the language' of the Bible, that Slavery is tole- 
rated therein ; and not made a ground of excommunication from the church. 
The copy is now at your service. You will find it not so full as when 
spoken. Eight hours were expended in the delivery of the whole, and 
the last three parts were crowded into less than half that space. It would 
have required three hours more to have done justice to these. But, having 
conceived my plan, I adhered to it throughout, giving ray principal attention 
to the scriptural argument. I have long believed, that if this nation is to 
be saved from a deluge of suicidal blood, it will be through the conserva- 
tive power of the word of our God. 

You will perceive, that, notwithstanding the argument is upon the 
whole contracted, as to space, it is expanded as to matter. I allowed my- 
self in writing it out, in a few instances, to work into the proper place, 
virtual answers to arguments which were really uttered subsequently to mine : 
although, nearly everything had been anticipated. You may notice, for 
example, among the omissions, the remarks on the criticism upon 1 Tim. 
vi : 2, about the masters who were not masters, and about the corn and po- 
tatoes. I really thought pity to put such matter in print; and, therefore, 
preferred walking backward, and throwing a mantle over it. 

It appeared to me best to retain the form of an address to the presi- 
ding officer, because I could call up the matter more vividly to my own 
mmd, and I think those who were present will remember it better. Proba- 
bly, also, it may increase the vivacity of the whole. Our Abolition breth- 
ren will say this is necessary ; for it will, no doubt, be to them a perfect 
morpheura. They will be all asleep before they reach the end of the 
pamphlet. Close, logical discussion is so unsavory, that they become wea- 



iv LETTER. 

ry of it very soon. Loose declamation suits their taste much better. I 
have omitted personal reference to arguments, because I wish to avoid dis- 
pute with any individual. And some pleasantries, allowable in oral discus- 
sion, are also dropped. 

Truth requires the public to know my general plan, lest they should 
suppose me guilty of not meeting the whole subject. The plan of the 
whole speech contained four general heads, besides tlie prefatory remarks 
against introducing the matter into ecclesiastical bodies at all. 

L The Scriptural argument; which, alone, you have here. 

II. An aggressive movement upon the Abolition camp — in whicli I 
carry the war into the heart of the enemy's country. Here, very briefly, 
I sustained four propositions. 1. The Abolition movement occasions the 
riveting of the chains of temporal bondage tighter and more tightly upon 
the colored race. 2. It occasions the manacles of intellectual bondage, 
and the chains of spiritual and eternal death, to be the more firmly and 
durably fastened upon this unhappy race. 3. It is a treasonable movement 
against the Constitution of the United States. 4. It tends to, and aims at 
a dissolution of this Union ; and there is reason to believe, on this point, 
that English Abolitionists and the British government are laboring and co- 
operating with American abolitionists in an extended scheme to divide and 
destroy the republic, whenever a war with England occurs, by means of 
black troops from the West Indies and Canada, co-operating with a slave 
insurrection. 

III. The question of Slavery, as viewed by the eye of political phi- 
losophy, and of moral and municipal law. 

IV. Tlic Divine plan of restoring man universally to his freedom — 
first, in fact ; then, in form : and the application of it in the splendid 
scheme of African Colonization. This topic 1 did but toucli ; and tiie great 
question which ought to come in here, why God permitted the introduction 
of Slavery into this republic ? and what His wise designs were concerning 
it? — this most important question I did not touch at all. In regard to 
African colonization, I hastily referred to the successes in Liberia as evi- 
dencc of its practicability; and especially since the noble, philanthropic and 
eminently succesful experiment of John McDonogh, of New Orleans, has 
demonstrated the easy practicability of universal emancipation to-real freedom. 

Whether ever this plan shall be filled up is yet a contingency. 
Very respectfully, your humble servant, 

GEO. JUNKIN. 

Miami University, Oct, 10, 1843. 



THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION, 



VS. 



ABOLITIONISM, &c. 



Mr. Moderator : — 

Ever since modern abolitionism developed its 
true character, it has been my policy to avoid all public discus- 
sions of the subject. The anger, and wrath, and bitterness, and 
distraction, and alienation among brethren, which have so 
generally attended its agitation, early convinced me, that pru- 
dence for peace's sake, required the exclusion of this exciting 
controversy from our church courts : and this policy has actuated 
the brethren generally ^vith whom 1 have been called to act in 
my former field of labor. When it pleased God to locate me 
in a new field, I saw, or thought I saw additional reasons, con- 
firming the wisdom of this course. It was early impressed upon 
my mind, that this brand had already kindled up a fire which 
had well nigh consumed Miami University. To such a ruinous 
degree did the fire burn within her bosom, that the Trustees 
took up the subject and passed strong resolutions condemnatory 
of this wild-fire ; and commendatory of a more prudent course.* 
Hence, I felt myself called upon, the more earnestly to labor for 
the suppression of a class of disputations that result in evil, and 
only evil. The consequence is, peace and kindly feeling be- 
tween young men from all the States indiscriminately. And 
hence my opposition in Presbytery to all attempts (and they 
have not been few) to agitate and agitate and agitate on the 
subject. And hence the pertinacity with which, as a member 
of the Committee of Bills and Overtures, and as a deliberating 

* See Annual Catalogue for 1840. 



6 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

member on this floor, I have opposed every movement of the 
kind. And it appears, even yet, to me, that this opposition is 
not so feeble, and this reluctance to discuss Anti-slavery in this 
Synod is not so small, as the vote to take off the table the paper 
of my venerable colleague would seem to indicate. 

Sir, we have been hankrcd, into this subject. We have 
been told that we are afraid of the light — afraid to meet the 
argument — that it would soon be seen, upon the vote to take 
up, who were afraid of the truth. Sir, '• Let not him that gird- 
eth on his harness boast himself as he that'putteth it off." It 
may appear hereafter who will flinch from the truth — who will 
shrink away from the sword of the Spirit. But what was the 
effect of this banter upon the house ? A young brother, who 
felt that he was ready to discuss the subject; but who, before, 
had no wish to agitate, caught the fire; he would not be dared to 
a controversy and yet shrink. I saw his blood warm, I saw the 
fire kindle in his eye, I saw his generous bosom heave with 
indignant emotion at the insinuation of cowardice ; and you 
observed how he threw back the charge in tones of firm defi- 
ance, and declared his readiness to meet the question. I 
admired the indignant emotions and the firm tones of the decla- 
ration ; and yet, I must be permitted to think there Mas a 
mixture of feeling not entirely holy. That anotlicr man ban- 
ters and dares mc to a conflict, of whatever kind it may be, is 
not a just reason why I should enter upon it. A man should 
have better reason for battle, than that another has asserted his 
superior strength. But so it happened here. Immediately the 
blood of age began to course its long-worn channels, with a 
quicker pace ; and the reverend father on my left could no 
longer look down with indifference upon the gauntlet at his feet. 
lie would no longer be bantered by the boys. Thus the fire 
passed from bosom to bosom, and thus the present speaker was 
left in the lean minority of four, against taking up the slavery 
resolutions. He had been threshing his wheat by the wine 
presses to hide it from (he Midianites, and being often urged to 
go forth to battle in this war, he had still declined ; nevertheless 
he had put a fleece of wool upon the floor, to obtain a sign 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. ^ 

from the Lord. And now, that there seems to be no longer any 
evasion, he takes it to be the Master's will that he should discuss 
this subject ; and being forewarned by others than these last 
signs, he has not come up to this Synod wholly unprepared. Nor 
is it my intention to skim over the surface of things. If we must 
discuss, let us do it thoroughly : "Whatsoever thy hand findeth 
to do, do it with thy might," that is, with all thy might. Which 
divine aphorism is pithily expressed in another form : " What- 
ever is worth doing, is worth doing well." This maxim, I early 
imbibed, and generally endeavor to embody it in action, and 
shall try to do so on the present occasion. Let the plough run 
deep if you expect the corn to rise high. These agricultural allu- 
sions please me much — they carry me back to the days of my 
boyhood. I was born in a farm-house, and brought up almost 
to manhood at the plough tail ; and can assure the farmers 
of Miami Valley, that if you would run the plough ten inches 
deep, you would gather ten bushels of corn more to the acre, 
than you commonly do. Shallow furrows make short corn ; and 
shallow discussion yields a light harvest of knowledge. Let 
patience have her perfect work : let us take time to dig for the 
golden treasure, deep in the mine of Holy Scripture. 

Notwithstanding all this, Mr. Moderator, I was opposed to 
entering upon this subject here, because — 

L Ecclesiastical courts, in a free State, have no jurisdiction 
over Slavery. This Synod has no original jurisdiction at all, 
when viewed in its judicial capacity. It can try ecclesiastical 
causes only on appeal or reference. And having no portion of its 
supervision extending over a Slave-holding population, appeals 
involving this question of Slavery, cannot come before it : ex- 
cept indeed in the case where a person may reside within our 
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and yet own slaves in another State. 
Should such case occur, let us meet it ; but let us wait until it 
come up in due order. 

In a restricted sense, Svnod has legislative powers — such 
as the division of Presbyteries, and erection of new ones, the 
devising and recommending of measures of benevolence, etc., 
etc., which are more legislative than judicial. But here, as 



8 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

before, Sjnod cannot easily come into collision with Slavery, 
provided it keeps within its own constitutional limits. Indi- 
vidual ministers, indeed, in course of Scripture exposition, will 
treat the relation of master and slave, for it often turns up in 
the Bible. But this is no part of synodical business, and 
cannot orderly come before this court. As men, we may listen 
to lectures and sermons on any subject, and that whilst congre- 
gated at ecclesiastical meetings ; but clearly, to hear lectures 
on animal magnetism, on municipal law, on geology, on moral, 
and political subjects, is not synodical, if common sense and our 
Book at all define the duties of a Synod. Why then, should 
we spend our time in discussing, in the abstract, a subject over 
which wc have no juriidiction in the concrete ? If we have 
no business proper to us as a Synod, let us adjourn and go home: 
but let us not go out on a voyage of discovery, lest we 
encounter something more substantial than windmills or hay- 
slacks. 

But some man will say, though all this be true, yet the 
moral force of this body is great, and her voice ought to be 
heard on great and important subjects. Public sentiment will 
be influenced by it. 

I answer, is the moral force of this body great ? Then, let 
us not diminish it by presenting a spectacle of unkind and hot 
discussion. If we have a heavy capital of moral force, let us 
not expend it in wild speculation, let us not cast it to the winds 
and waves of doubtful strife. 

But farther, the moral force of bodies of men is not always 
proportional to their numerical force. And besides, what is the 
moral force of a body, when equally divided ? If it should hap- 
pen that this body, after discussing Abolition for three or four 
days, should come to an almost perfect equipoise, then how much 
is its moral foice ? Let it go abroad that we are divided equally 
in numhcr, talent, piety, how much power for good can we 
operate on this subject ? 

But we may be told, the discussion will do good — light will 
be shed on a dark subject — men's eyes will be opened, and the 
truth will triumph. 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 9 

I say, such a result may follow ; still this is not synodical 
business ; it is the business of individuals. There may be a few 
brethren here, who have deeply studied the subject and who 
may be able to illuminate the synod and the populace with their 
light, and to warm them with the flashes of an overpowering 
eloquence ; let them do it in their own proper place and time ; 
this synod, I contend is not that proper place. 

II. But again, I object to this course : because, the discus- 
sion will most likely degenerate into a mere debate, dispute, or 
hot controversy in which more than blood will be spilt. Can 
any brother, who takes into view the extreme excitability of the 
public mind doubt it ? Is it reasonable to expect that slavery, 
abolitionism, and colonization will be discussed here with that 
coolness and soul-subdued temper which their importance de- 
mands, and Christian courtesy requires ? Does any man, in 
fact expect it ? As for myself, I have passed through some 
stormy scenes and have learned by experience, that the more 
boisterous the elements become, the more perfectly all my facul- 
ties are at command. Brethren must not infer from my repug- 
nance to this discussion, that individually I fear the heavings of 
the billows and the violence of the blast. I hope I shall be 
enabled to look the wind in the eye and always to pull the 
right oar. He who commands me into these troubled waters 
will keep me in safety. No sir ; it is not peculiarly for myself 
that I deprecate these agitations : other men and various 
interests may suffer in the collision. Let us therefore not 
tempt the dangerous way uncalled by the voice of Providence. 
" Leave off contention before it be meddled with." " He that 
passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is 
like one that taketh a dog by the ears." — (Prov. xxvi : 17.) 
Let us follow peace with all men — as much as lieth in us. 

III. I object to entering upon the abolition controversy 
here, because its advocates are an organized political party. 

Here permit me to say, there is a sense in which the adage, 
"religion has nothing to do with pohtics," is true. That is, 
when by politics is meant parti/ wrangling and defamation ; 
then, indeed, religion is far off. 



10 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

But there is also a sense in which the proverb is most 
notoriously and corruptly false ; viz., when by it, men mean 
that the obligations of religion have and ought to have no 
governing influence upon political conduct — that for their acts 
and doings in affairs of government, men are not accountable 
to God : but only to the people, or rather to the party. This 
idea, which I fear is extensively held in practice^ cannot be too 
severely reprobated. 

All true Presbyterians believe that the civil government 
has no power over religious matters : and that religious officers, 
as such, have no kind of control in civil affairs. Even protec- 
tion to property and persons in religious privileges, I contend, 
we do not ask as religious men. We claim such protection, not 
as religious people^ but as civil citizens. Christ's kingdom is in 
no sense whatever dependant on the civil power. As members 
of the civil commonwealth^ we have a right to hold property and 
to assemble for any lawful purpose : it is not because we are 
religious men that the law protects us this day ; but because wc 
are citizens. It is not because we are religious men, that, 
associated, we hold property in the form of church buildings, 
but simply because we are citizens. Wc are here, to-day, using 
our privilege as officers of Christ's church, because He has 
granted it and it is not inconsistent with our duties as citizens : 
to-morrow wc may be at the polls using our rights of a civil 
nature. But still, church and state are entirely distinct ; their 
union is anti-christian, and leads to despotism and bondage. I 
therefore contend peremptorily, that this synod^ has no right to 
intermeddle with political partyism. This is not the place to 
discuss questions of party politics. We may not here pass 
resolutions for or against banks — for or against a protective 
tariff" — for or against the veto power — for or against De- 
mocracy or Whigism — for or against Van Buren, Clay or 
Birney. The relation of master and slave is a civil relation ; 
it is regulated by the civil law and always has been, ecclesiasti- 
cal bodies never had, in all the world's history, any control over 
it. As citizens we may plunge into the party strife, but as an 
ecclesiastical body wc may not do it. Let our church courts 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 11 

throw themselves into the vorlex of party pohtics, then farewell 
to peace and harmony — farewell to respectabiHty and to 
public confidence. If individaal ministers feel themselves cal- 
led to soil their cloth in this strife — let them bear the responsi- 
bility and sink alone, under the ban of public reprobation, but 
let not the Synod of Cincinnati commit the suicidal deed. 

It is surely unnecessary for me to dwell in proof of the 
fact, that Anti Slavery is a public, organized political party. 
True, it is a weak and contemptible political party, but assuredly 
it has all the paraphernalia of party organization. It has its 
meetings great and small — its speeches wise and foolish — its 
committees and sub-committees — its candidates for political 
office, from the Presidency of the Union, and Congressmen 
down, how low T cannot tell. Let the officers of God's church 
pause a little upon the margin of this crater, before we take 
the leap of Empedocles : let us calculate consequences, before 
we take the fearful plunge. 

IV. This controversy places the peace party, as we may 
call ourselves in the premises, in a false position. It lays us open 
to the illogical and unjust, yet plausible inference, that we are 
advocates of Slavery. The brethren who urge this controversy 
upon us, delight to be called, and are every where known as 
Abolitionists — Anti-slaverTj men — men who labor to do away 
Slavery from the land and from the world. They wish to be 
called " the Liberty Party." O liberty ! what things have been 
done in thy sacred name ! And some newspaper editors have 
been foolish enough to concede the name liberty to this handful; 
thereby intimating that the other political parties are not in 
favor of liberty. The popular mind is often charmed and 
governed by a word, and the moment, the Anti-slavery men meet 
with any kind of opposition, the cry of Pro Slavery is raised: the 
mind rushes to the opposite extreme. Here is the Anti-slavery 
party. But anti means against ; if then they are against sla- 
very, whoever opposes them must he for or in favor of slavery; 
— for and against — pro and anti: there it is, clear to a demon- 
stration. All who oppose the Abolitionists are in favor of 
slavery. Such is the logic that actually does govern many a 



12 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

human mind. Many good, honest-hearted men do not see how 
to escape from it. They never perceive that there are different 
kinds of opposition — that men may be opposed in one respect 
and yet not in another. Paul was a sound, clear-headed, warm- 
hearted evangelical preacher ; but Peter was opposed to Paul ; 
therefore Peter was a muddy-headed, corrupt and heterodox 
preacher. Here you have the identical argument, by which 
opposers of modern ultra abolitionism, are proved to be Pro 
Slavery men. Even learned divines, and erudite editors have 
been caught in this cobweb, and it is in vain you try to extri- 
cate them. The argument is so easy and so popular, they are 
unwilling to abandon it ; thus by a pitiful fallacy, many a man 
is held in bondage worse than Kentuckian, whilst he glories 
and triumphs in his freedom. He swings his manacled hands 
around and shouts for libcrt}^, whilst he is himself the slave 
of a little false logic. This would be amusing indeed, if we 
could cease to pity human weakness and to regard our own 
rights and privileges. But as these manacles are waved in 
frantic sport over our heads fo their peril, we dislike the play; 
and are unwilling to be placed in such a false position. We 
are not willing that honcst-hcarted people, by a little false 
reasoning, should be lead to suppose that we are in favor of 
slavery. We oppose the movements of abolitionists, chiefly by 
yielding; therefore, we are deemed and held guilty of Pro 
Slavery. Whereas, we are in truth opposed to slavcr3% and are 
doing as much in our respective positions to abate its evils, as 
our brethren arc. We ditTer from them as to the manner of 
doing away these evils, whilst we suppose, we are much more 
efficient in the matter of meliorating the condition of the colored 
race. No disclaimer will avail. We tell the world — we tell 
our less credulous Christian brethren, our objections to Slavery. 
Wc point to Fiiberia, the land of the free colored man, as proof 
of our success. But all in vain ; — you are opposed to the Anti- 
slavery party, and therefore you must be Pro-slavery men. 

Such is the false position, in which the brethren know, we 
are placed by the shape of the question ; and some rejoice in 
it. Nor can our utmost stretch of charity excuse them from 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 13 

pushing the question with the knowledge of this injustice. The 
moment we lift our voice in opposition to their course, some 
Siipient editor charges us with advocating slavery and deems 
the charge sufficient proof. We hold you to it unless you prove 
your innocence. All advantages are fair in war. 

Such, in brief, are my reasons for opposing the introduction 
of this question into our ecclesiastical bodies. The peace of 
this Synod — the happiness and welfare of its members — its 
moral force and respectability will be best advanced, by leaving 
the whole subject of Slavery to the ecclesiastical bodies and to 
the civil governments, within which the providence of God has 
thrown that unfortunate class of the human race. 

Time and opportunity have not allowed me to study and 
prepare for a discussion of the whole doctrine of master and 
slave. This relation, viewed either in the light of moral philo- 
sophy or of municipal law, is embarrassed with no small diffi- 
culties. Ta those who have the learning and the leisure, I leave 
the subject in the last named two respects ; mine, at present, be 
the less profound, but not less important duty of opening the sa- 
cred volume and exhibiting its teachings on the relation of mas- 
ter and servant. 

Truth is the only thing in the universe worthy of laborious 
research. Whatever he the field, the enlightened investigator 
is in quest of truth. In his labors, the analytic method is chiefly 
pursued. If his subject be in the field of nature, he takes it up, 
separates it into its various parts — resolves it into its original 
elements, if practicable ; examines each minutely, and thus 
learns the laws of their influence, and the relations each sustains 
to the whole. Thus he discovers truths of nature. If the 
Bible, or any given portion of it be his subject, his method is 
not diirerent. He separates sentence frem sentence, word from 
word ; weighs each part by itself, and marks its bearings and 
relations to the whole, and thus arrives at a knowledge of its 
meaning. 

But now if the investigator assumes the office of teacher, 
he will find it most convenient to pursue the opposite method — 
the synthetic. He will exhibit to the learner the truth he has 
discovered. He will then point out its relations to other truths: 



11 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

he will put part to his part and rccompose the whole; thus shew- 
ing how his doctrine has been deduced from his subject. He 
has ascertained by analytical inspection, what the meaning of 
a portion of the Dible is, and now he applies the languag;e to 
his doctrine, and so leads the mind on to a clear view of the 
whole passage. If the truths are laid down without such par- 
ticular collating of the scripture language, it is dogmatic in- 
struction, and savors of pride, and leads to faith in man. But if 
the language of the Bible is laid side by side with the proposi- 
tions held and taught, and the coincidence clearly pointed out, 
then the teacher honors the intellect of the taught, and may fair- 
ly claim his belief in the doctrine, not as man's, but as God's. 

This is the method I shall endeavor to pursue in the ensuing 
scriptural argument. Having, before I began to arrange the 
matter, pursued the analytic plan — having narrowly examined 
the language of the Bible where it speaks of master and ser- 
vant, having carefully sifted its terms according to the admitted 
rules of interpretation, and thus having ascertained its meaning, 
I propose to state in a scries of distinct propositions the truths I 
have elaborated, and to bring them into immediate connexion 
with the scripture language, and thus to secure the assent of the 
understanding and the belief of the heart. 

The opposite method I will not pursue: it is, alas! not un- 
common even on this subject ; — viz: First to determine what the 
truth is — what the Bible ought to teach on any given point, and 
then come to it in order to make it teach the truth. Human 
reason sets ilself to work and comes to the conclusion, that such 
a docrine is true ; then it proceeds to examine the Bible for 
proof of its truth; and. of course, what a man's reason assures 
him ought to be in the Bible, the same reason, with the aid of a 
torturing engine, called criticism, can easily discover there. — 
According to this synthetic method, one affirms, " it is contrary 
to reason, that three persons should exist in one Codhead." 
He then proceeds to examine the Bible, not, you will observe, to 
ascertain what it actually docs teach in regard to the mode of 
the Divine existence, but to interpret the Bible language so as 
to make it speak the language of truth, i. c. of his own precon- 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 15 

ceived doctrine. Another says, "If the horrible doctrine of 
eternal punishment were taught in the Bible, I would kick it out 
of my house." Another, "If the terrible doctrine of eternal 
election were taught in the Bible, I would burn it." And yet 
another, " If I thought the Bible tolerated Slavery, I would turn 
infidel and trample it under my feet." 

Now, all these belong to the same school of interpreters. 
They all form their opinions of what the sacred volume should 
say, and go to it, to ascertain whether it will dare to teach differ- 
ently from their particular notions of truth. 

But now, is not all this folly? Is it not to deal unfaithfully 
with the Sacred Records? Let us not come to God, to tell him 
what he ought to say in his Word; but lefus draw near with holy 
reverence upon our spirits, to learn what he hath said. Let our 
minds be checked and chastened into subjection to the plain 
and simple language of revelation. Ordinarily, it is with God^ 
as it is with honest men, the plain, obvious, simple meaning of 
his Word is the true meaning — the meaning which he would 
have us believe. If we find ourselves under the necessity of 
hair-splitting criticisms and abstruse distinctions, in order to make 
out our meaning, it is highly probable our meaning differs from 
God. 

I do not deny, that there are obscure passages in the 
Scriptures, which require learned and laborious criticism. But 
then, this does not prove, that where the language is clear and 
plain, and easily understood, there the torturing power of bold 
criticism is needed, or is justifiable, in order to bring out an- 
otlier sense, quite different from what lies open upon the surface 
of the text. 



PROPOSITION I. 



Slavery existed during the period over zvhich the Old Testament 
History extends. 

A VERY early testimony to this truth is recorded in Gen. xxxvi: 
27, etc ; "Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let 
not our hand be upon him ; for he is our brother, and our flesh ; 
and his brethren were content : and they drew and lifted up 
Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty 
pieces of silver : and the Midianites sold him into Egjpt, unto 
Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, and captain of the guard." 
This event occurred about seventeen hundred and twenty-four 
years before the Christian era. 

Here observe : 1. Joseph was sold "for twenty pieces of 
silver" — sold by his brethren . There is no room here for the 
miserable subterfuge, that he sold himself. The Midianites 
who paid the money, again sold him in Egypt. 2. The sale was 
absolute and without limitation. No hint is given of a period 
when he was to be freed from slavery. The assertion that such 
sales were for seven or six years, is wholly gratuitous and with- 
out a particle of evidence. 3. This sale was not with Joseph's 
consent — it was into involuntary bondage. "Wc are verily 
guilty," said the brethren. Gen xlii : 21, "concerning our 
brother, in that wc saw the anguish of his soul, when he be- 
sought us, and we would not hear." Ah, yes, it was an invol- 
untary bondage. 4. The whole transaction shews that such 
sales were not uncommon. The moment they saw the compa- 
ny of travelling merchants, the thought of the sale occurred — 
" Come, let us sell him." I was a common custom, or such 
thought could not have thus sprung up. 5. The Ishmaelites 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. ^7 

must have known there was a market for such articles in Egypt 
or they would not have bought. Here is indubitable evidence 
of the existence of the slave trade in connection with kidnap- 
ping. His brothers stole him from their own father and sold 
him. The Ishmaclitcs do not seem to have enquired how they 
came by him. The Ishmaelites did not steal him. Potiphar 
did not steal him. According to the notions of the age, they 
felt no self reproach at the wrong ; no more than good Queen 
Bess, who is said to have been a stockholder in a slave- 
trading company. 

Now, all this agrees with Thomas Clarkson's opinion, that 
Slavery and the slave trade originated in the wars of Nimrod 
"who," says he, (Pt. I. chap, iii) " gave rise to that inseparable 
idea of victory and servitude, which we find among the nations 
of antiquity, and which has existed uniformly since, in one 
country or another, to the present day." 

"Proud Nimrod first the bloody chase began, 
A mighty hunter, and his prey was man." Pope. 

Clarkson also quotes Zenophon thus: — "It was a law estab- 
lished from time immemorial among the nations of antiquity 
to oblige those to undergo the severities of servitude, whom 
victory had thrown into their hands." 

Clarkson gives the same view of Joseph's case as I have 
given. "It shows, says he, that there were men, even at that 
early period, who travelled up and down as merchants, collect- 
ing not only balm, myrrh, spicery, and other wares, but the 
human species also, for the purposes of traffic. The instant 
determination of the brothers, on the first sight of the mer- 
chants, to sell him, and the immediate acquiescence of those, who 
purchased him for a foreign market, prove, that this commerce 
had been then established, not only in that part of the country 
where this transaction happened, but in that, also, whither the 
merchants were then travelling with their camels, namely Egypt: 
and they show farther, that, as all customs require time for 
their establishment, so it must have existed in the ages previous 
to that of Pharaoh; that is, in those ages in which we fixed 
3 



18 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

the first date of involuntary servitude. This commerce, then, 
as appears by the present instance, existed in the earHest 
practices of barter; and had descended to the Egyptians, 
through as long a period of time, as was sufficient to have made 
it, in the times alhided to, an estabhshed custom. Thus was 
Egypt, the first market that is recorded, for the sale of the 
human species." — (Pt. I. Ch. vi.) 

Towards the close of the same chapter, he says, " Though 
Egypt was the first market recorded for this species of traffic; 
and though Egypt, and Cyprus afterwards, were particularly 
distinguished for it, in the times of tlie Trojan war ; yet, they 
were not the only places, even at that period', where men were 
bought and sold. The Odyssey of Homer, shows that it was 
then practiced in many of the Islands of the iEgcan sea; and 
the Iliad, that it had taken place among those Grecians on the 
continent of Europe, who had embarked from thence on the 
Trojan expedition. This appears particularly at the end of 
the seventh book. A fleet is described there, as having just 
arrived from Lemnos, with a supply of wine for the Grecian 
camp. The merchants are described also, as immediately 
exposing it to sale, and as receiving in exchange, among other 
articles of barter, " a nuinher of slaves.'''' 

" It will now be sufficient," continues Clarkson, "to observe, 
that, as other states arose, and as circumstances contributed to 
make them known, this custom is discovered to have existed 
among them; that it travelled over all Asia; that it spread 
through the Grecian and Roman world; was in use among the 
barbarous nations, which overturned the Roman empire; and 
was practiced, therefore, at the same period, throughout all 
Europe." Such is the opinion of Thomas Clarkson; and yet 
we have abolitionists who assert, that they have ascertained by 
an examination of twenty thousand pages, quarto and octavo, 
that there was no slavery in Asia Minor! What prodigious 
learning ! what profound silliness ! 

Slavery, then, and the slave trade, existed in the world at 
least three thousand, five hundred and sixty-seven years ago; 
and Africa herself contained the first great slave market. 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 19 

2. Let me carry you back one hundred and fifty-four years, 
viz : to the exodus of Abram from Mesopotamia, Gen. xii : 5. 
"And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and 
all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that 
they had gotten in Haran;" — Who these souls were is ex- 
plained inver: 16. — "And he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, 
and men servants, and maid servants, and she asses, and camels." 
They are again mentioned in Ch. xiv : 14,15 — "he armed his 
trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and 
eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan: And he divided him- 
self against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote 
them." 

Here, it will be admitted, is evidence that Abram had 
servants gotten in Haran. But how gottcnl Were they captives 
taken in war? Were they criminals, who had forfeited their 
liberty and been sold as convicts? Were they his own children 
begotten of his own body? Were they bought with his money? 
The last of these we take to be true: and the point and hinge 
of the controversy turns upon the force of the word gotten in 
Gen. xii: 5. Now this word — (I mean the original Hebrew word, 
for the English cannot determine it,) is of general signification. 
I shall cite Gesenius, the great German Hebraist, not as authori- 
ty exactly, — for reference to Lexicons as authority in controversy, 
is a sophomoric trick. No scholar depends on Lexicons. The 
only true method to settle the meaning of doubtful words, is to 
refer to other places where the same author uses the word; and 
thus to make the book its own interpreter. This method I shall 
pursue, and so doing will enable the English reader, to compre- 
hend the meaning and force of my verbal criticism. All the 
faith I shall ask of him in myself, will be simply belief in my 
veracity when I say, the word in the text under examination, is 
used, in such and such other passages. This is surely not asking 
much confidence in men: for if I should attempt to deceive, 
there are antagonists enough in this argument to expose mc. To 
proceed. Gesenius is cited chiefly for his references. Under his 
fourth head of definition, of the word forg-o«m,in Haran (ansan) 
he says " To make is also, i. q. to gel by labor, to acquire, as in 



20 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

English to make money: Lat. pecuniam facere, Gr. poiein hion^ 
to make a living, e. g.^woprr/^/, 2<;eoM. (Gen. xxxi: 1, Dcut. 
viii: 17, 18, Jer. xvii: 11.) — Slaves, (Gen. xii : 5, Is. xix: 10.) 
Now let us look at the passages cited. Gen. xxxi: 1; Laban's 
sons said " Jacol> hath taken away all that was our f^xther's: 
and of that which was our father's hath he gotten all this glory." 
Here, the w^ord golten (nnsan) means, to earn and procure 
by labor. Deut. viii: 17,18^ * "My power * * hath 
gotten me this wealth. * * * for it is lie, (God) that 
giveth thee power to get wealth."' These cases are both 
unequivocal; so is the next, Jer. xvii: 11, * * * "so- 
hc that gctleih riches, and not by right." So Stokius cites 
correctly Ezek. xxviii: 4, "With thy wisdom and with thine 
understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold 
and silver into thy treasures." So it is applied Gen. xi: 4, to 
the acquisition of fame * * * u /, ^ ^g make us a name.'* 
Is. xix: 10, * * * "all that make sluices and ponds for 
fish" — all the makers, which may mean the operative work- 
men, or the proprietors who make, procure, or acquire these 
things. 

These arc surely sufficient to show, that to get means to 
acquire, to procure by labor or otherwise. But the matter is 
settled most decisively by Gen. xvii: 12,13: — "And he that 
is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man- 
child in your generations : he that is born in the house, or bought 
with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. lie that 
is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must 
needs be circumcised ;" and ver. 23, "All that were born in his 
house, and all that were bought with his money." 

Here, then, we have men servants and women servants in 
the possession of Abram, and we arc told how they became his: 
they were bought with his money of foreigners — they were 
l)orn in his house. Abram had gotten souls in Ilaran — he had 
procured them, preciscl}^ as he had procured his oxen and his 
asses, by his industry and economy — he bought them, and he 
bred tlieni, and he educated them — Gen. xiv : 11, 15; Trained 
Servants. — It is the same original word as used in Proverbs:. 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 21 

''train up a child in the way he should go." Abram selected 
these three hundred and eighteen, because he could trust them. 
He was a conscientious and a faithful master: and such will 
always have conscientious and trust-worthy servants. 

Slavery did exist more than three thousand seven hundred 
and twenty-one years ago. 

But we arc told, that there was no Slavery, after all, with 
Abraham. lie was a simple missionary of the true religion; and 
whenever any of the heathen around him felt inclined to em- 
brace his doctrine, he took them into his employment and used 
them as herdsmen, and in other service — admitted them to his 
church privileges : and their children he employed in the same 
way: and this is all that is meant, by "souls he had gotten in 
Haran"— « born in his house"~"bought with money of any 
stranger ! " Most marvellous interpretation ! ! Now, candidly, 
did not this interpretation result from the pre-determination not 
to find Slavery in the Bible? Did it ever originate from a fair 
explanation of the Bible language? But it is sustained by as 
i^ingular a criticism on the word, gotten in Haran, Gen. xii: 5. It 
is alleged that the Hebrew word ausau means, sometimes, to con- 
secrate—to dedicate to God's service; and we are referred for 
proof to 2 Chron.xxiv: 4; and Ezck.xviii: 31. Let us see: "For 
the sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman, had broken up the 
house of God ; and also all the dedicated things of the house of 
the Lord did they bestow upon Baalim." But here, unfortu- 
nately, the dedicated things— the consecrated things, are expressed 
by an entirely different word, (kaudshei) which truly and prop- 
erly means to dedicate, sanctify, consecrate or make "holy— these 
consecrated things they did bestow upon Baalim— here ausau 
occurs ; but is this a consecration ? When the already dedicated 
things, are passed over as a possession to the idol, are we to be 
told that this is consecration— making of them holy! No! Mr. 
Moderator; the text simply aflirms, that the holy things of 
God's house were passed over to the possession of Baalim's tem- 
ple; just as the souls in Haran are described by the same word, 
ausau, as passing over from the strangers of whom Abram pur- 
chased them, when he paid the price stipulated and agreed upon. 



22 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

Equally unfortunate for this strange interpretation, is the 
other case referred to: Ezek. xviii: 31; "Cast away from you 
all your transgressions whereby ye have transgressed; and make 
you a new heart and a new spirit." Here make is ausau; but 
does making a new heart mean only to consecrate, to dedicate 
to religious service! . This cpnstruction would suit Puseyism 
very well. It would suit the advocates of baptismal regenera- 
tion : but surely evangelical Christians can never believe, that 
make you a new heart, means only to consecrate or dedicate to God. 
Not at all. This language means to renovate, regenerate, cre- 
ate anew in Christ. And Isai. xi: 19, informs us how this com- 
mand to make a new heart is to be accomplished ; viz.: by di- 
vine grace, — "I will give them one heart, and I will put a new 
spirit within you and I will take the stony heart out of their 
flesh and I will give them a heart of flesh.'' Here it is then: 
they arc to make it, and Christ is to give it. When it is given 
it is made, and when it is made it is given. Then it is the be- 
liever's — he hath it — it is his possession which he hath gotten^ 
whether in Haran or in Canaan. Away then, with your mere 
dedication; we deny that the word (ausau) simply and alone, 
ever properly means to consecrate. We repeat it, slavery 
existed in Abraham's household. 

3. The whole nation of Israel were reduced, in Egypt, 
by gradual steps, to a state, little if at all superior to the most 
debasing bondage. They had task masters over them, (Exodus 
v: 14) who were themselves beaten, because they were not sufli- 
ciently severe upon the laborers under their command, Ex. i: 13, 
14; "And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve 
with rigor. And they made their lives bitter with hard bond- 
dage, in mortar and in brick, and in all manner of service in the 
field; all their service wherein they made them serve was with 
rigor." And in all subsequent history, it is referred to as a state 
of base bondage. 

Another evidence of extreme depression was the destruc- 
tion of their male children. God has provided a law in the 
essential constitution of human nature, by whose operation, the 
enslaved and oppressed must necessarily outgrow their oppres- 
sors and thus ultimately regain their liberty. It is this, that be- 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 23 

ing free from the cares and anxieties of providing for their 
own families — these devolving upon their masters — the slaves 
marry early and breed fast; whereas, freemen will not marry 
until they see a reasonable prospect of decent living to their 
families. This law was at work in Egypt, just as it is now in 
our country. The Egyptians perceived it and attempted to 
check it, by destroying all the male children. Ex. i : 15, 16; 
" If it be a son, ye shall kill him : " this is the command of the 
master, the king; shewing a most deplorable state of slavery: 
worse than any thing known in our times. 

We may be asked here. What became of the slaves of 
Abraham and his descendants according to your doctrine ? If 
the seed of Abraham carried their skives witb them down 
to Egypt, where were they, when their very masters were thus 
degraded ? I answer, the Egyptian tyrants who robbed Israel 
of his Hberty and of his own male children, could easily rob him 
of his slaves : and so they did. The Israelites lost their slaves 
in Egypt, except such as chose to flee with them, and who con- 
stituted the mixed multitude mentioned in Ex. xii, 38, as going 
up with them. 

4. The next instance, wherein slavery is recognised as a 
relation existing, I shall mention, is in the fourth and the tenth 
commandments: — "Thou shalt not do any work, thou nor thy son, 
nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor 
thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. — "Thou 
shalt not covet thy neighbor's house ; thou shalt not covet thy 
neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor 
his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." 

In both these precepts, ownership in, and control over, the 
menservants and the maidservants, is spoken of in the same 
language as ownership in the ox and the ass. In the latter, it is 
clear that covetousness could not exist, but where real ownership 
existed. To covet, is to desire another's property without a cor- 
responding wish and design to give him an equivalent. When I 
desire to purchase a man's house or his goods ; this is not cove- 
tousness. There is no sin here. If I am wilUng to pay the full 
value, no strength of desire in me amounts to the sin forbidden 



24 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

in this commandment. Tiie owner wishes to sell his property, 
and I wish to buy; this is all without sin. Clearly, then, this 
sin of covetousness can be committed only in reference to the 
goods, property, and rights of another person. If the manser- 
vant and the maidservant did not belong to my neighbor — if 
he has no right of property in them, or in the ox, or the ass, it is 
impossible for me to commit the sin of covetousness in regard 
to them. Therefore, we conclude, that the decalogue recognises 
the existence of Slavery; it forbids interference with the owner- 
ship a man has in his servants and in his cattle; it legislaffes for 
the protection and welfare of the master or owner of the ser- 
vant, of the cattle, ox, or ass. 

5. The Gibeonites furnish a fifth example: (see, Joshua ix: 
21 — 23 — 27) "Let them live; let them be hewers of wood 
and drawers of water unto all the congregation, as the princes 
had promised;" and Joshua said to them : " Now, therefore, ye 
are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being 
bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the 
house of my God." " And .Toshua made them that day hewei-s 
of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the 
altar of the Lord, even unto this day, in the place which he 
should choose." 

Here, note, — L They were reduced to perpetual slavery — 
they and their children. 2. This was a punishment for their 
sin. Their lives had been forfeited. They knew that they were 
devoted to death, and preferred slavery to death. This of course 
does not justify Slavery; but it proves the position before us, viz. 
that this relation existed under Old Testament times. 

3. This slave labor was partly employed about the house 
of God and the altar. It might hence be inferred, that slave 
labor in building a church — in cleaning and keeping it, may 
not be a soul-damning sin even under the Gospel. A great 
noise has been made about some church in A iiginia wliich owned 
slaves and hired them out and appropriated tlic product towards 
paying their minister's salary. Weil, I am not to apologize for 
such cases. Yet, it may be said, if the church trustees came 
honestly by them ; and if they could not set them free to the 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 25 

benefit of the slaves ; and if they hired them to good christian 
masters who were kind to them and taught them the christian 
religion : if all these, then, I cannot see any more harm in the 
whole thing, than in a minister using slave labor on his farm; or 
in the church of God using slave labor "for the house of my 
God" and "for the congregation, and for the altar of the Lord." 
Before we leave this proposition, it may be as well to take 
up an objection, which is urged with apparent plausibility from 
the other side. It is said, the Hebrew word, Ebcd, translated 
sometimes servant, sometimes manservant, and sometimes bond- 
servant, does not mean a slave, but only a worker, one who is 
employed for a time, and even a relation of service of a highly 
honorable kind: and hence it is inferred, that the whole argu- 
ment on our part is lame and inconclusive, until we show that 
Ehed means a slave. This objection deserves a full and candid 
answer. And I remark, 1. The word Ebed is translated as 
above, and in itself properly signifies a worker, a laborer, a per- 
son who does work of any kind at all, for another person. It is 
very similar to our Anglicised Latin word sei-vant. All scholars 
agree, that the Latin word scrvus, had its application to slaves, 
from the customs of war. The maxims of the early ages inclu- 
ded this one, that the life of the conquered belonged to the con- 
queror—he might kill his vanquished foe. The soundness of 
this doctrine we should dispute ; but we have to do wilh it, 
simply as a fact. Hence, they inferred, that the life being the 
victor's, if he chose to save it, it was his then, also, and he might 
use the life, that is, the man, as he pleased: he had saved him, 
he was a servus, a saved thing, and belonged to the victor, just 
as his sword, and shield, and helmet, and treasures belonged to 
the victor. Hence, he might sell the man he had vanquished 
and taken, just as he might sell his spoils. Such is the origin of 
our English word servant, with a modification, however, of mean- 
ing, adapting it to any kind of service. It is constantly used to 
describe the relation of absolute bondage for life. It is also 
used condescendingly, as — when even a superior, writing to an 
inferior, subscribes himself, "your obedient humble servant."' 
Thus, we have, servants of the public, servants of Saul, of 



26 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

David, of Louis Philippe, of Queen Victoria, etc., etc. But 
still, amid all these modified applications, the word properly 
describes a relation of subjection, with an obligation of submis- 
sion to the authority of another. Now, just so is it with the He- 
brew word Ebed^ and we can no more infer from its modified 
applications, that it never means a bondservant for life, than we 
can infer from the modified uses of the English word scrcant, 
that it never means a slave; whereas, in all our southern coun- 
try, it is most commonly so used. 

Tlie word Ebcd occurs, according to Trommius, about 
seven hundred times in the Old Testament. Of these it is 
translated by the Greek word Doulos, in the Septuagint, three 
hundred and six times ; by the Greek word Pais, (a boy) 
six hundred and twelve times; by Oikales, (a house servant) 
twenty-eight times ; by Misthotos, (a hired servant) never 
once. 

The evidence, to show that Doulos means a servant for 
hfe — a slave — will be presented when we come to the New 
Testament. The Greek word Pais, ( boy) is used, as every 
Greek scholar knows, with the same variety of meaning, as hoy 
is in English: that is, as a synonyme for servant. Nothing is 
more common, than to call waiting-men by the name boys, even 
when they are old men; and that, whether they are slaves or 
hired men. 

Let us now take in connection with these, another Hebrew 
word, which is uniformly rendered in English, by hired servant. 
The word from which it is formed, signifies to procure service 
by offering a reward; to hire: and when applied to the person 
hired, to work for wages. The noun, Saukecr, is the name of 
the person so hired, and so working and wherever the Greek 
word, Mislhotos — a person serving for wages occurs, it is the 
translation of Saukecr. Mislhotos is never used as the transla- 
tion for Ebed; nor is Doulos ever used as the translation for 
Saukecr. This latter named word is not used very often — only 
sixteen times, according to Trommius. The reason is obvious; 
hired labor was not much used in Israel; the work requisite, 
being done by slaves, the " mixed multitude,'- and the Gib- 
eonites, and others bought with money or born in the house. 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 27 

Here, then, we have two distinct names for working men; 
both implying work to be done; but the one, descriptive of a 
permanent obligation to work for another person without any 
right to receive wages; the other temporarily employed, and to 
receive his wages at the end of his appointed and agreed time 
of labor. Now, it must be obvious, if the Bible holds up these 
as classes, contradistinguished from each other, representing the 
one, as a state preferable to the other, a faithful historian 
must not confound them, and a faithful exposition, is bound to 
mark the difference. Let us examine a few passages. And:— 

1. Exod. xii: 43— 45.— " This is the ordinance of the 
passover: there shall no stranger cat thereof. But every man's 
servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised 
him, then shall he eat thereof. A foreigner and a hired ser- 
vant— SauA:ee/— shall not eat thereof." Here most clearly, "the 
Ebed, that is bought with money" and the saukcer, the hired 
servant, are placed in contrast, with each other: the one being 
a permanent member of the household and under the master's 
control, and being circumcised, is permitted to eat the passover; 
the other, being not under the employer's control— but only 
temporarily, is not to eat. 

2. The same is taught, and a little more in Lev. xxii: 10,11. 
"There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of 
the priest, or an hired servant— a saukecr—shnW not eat of the 
holy thing. But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he 
shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat 
of his meat." 

Here, are several particulars;— 1. The meat mentioned, is 
not the passover, but the shew bread and other consecrated 
food for the priests. 2. The saukeer, hired servant, may not 
eat; but the Ebed, the bought slave, may eat. Behold again 
the contrast. Surely the servants, and the hired servants, arc 
quite different classes. 3. "If the priest buy any soul with 
his money"— Oh horrible! The very men who minister in 
religion, buying slaves — buying human flesh ! 1 yea buying 
souls ! ! paying down filthy lucre for souls 1 ! yea worse still, 
if you can have patience to hear God's word, the priest has 



28 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

servants born in his house. What ! a servant of God, a slave 
breeder ! Does the Bible say so? Don't be alarmed — read for 
yourself and be calm. 

3. Lev. xxv: G. — "And the Sabbath of the land, shall be 
meat for you; for thee, and for thy servant, Ebed, and for thy 
maid, and for thy hired servant, sankecr, and for thy stranger," 
etc. The contrast between, Ebed and Saukeer, is more full 
and perfect, if possible, in ver. 39,40, etc; " And if thy brother 
tliat dwellcth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; 
thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant — an Ebed; 
but as a hired servant — a Saukeer:''^ he is an Ebed, for he is 
bought; but he is to be treated, not as the Ebed of foreign birth, 
(see ver. 44 — 46) but as the Saukeeris treated. Now how are 
hired servants treated? Why assuredly, if they are not kindly 
treated, they will not stay, even to work out their day. Rather 
than be insulted, or overworked, or badly fed, they will forfeit 
their pay for the past time, and go to work for some one else. 
So the Hebrew was bound by the law to treat his Hebrew 
slave with kindness — '-thou shalt not rule over them with 
rigor'' — "they are my servants, {Ebcdim) they shall not be sold 
with the sale of an Ebed."'' They shall not be subject to the 
rigorous treatment of foreign slaves. Such are not the condi- 
tions of their sale to their brethren. 

Thus again, a strong contrast is drawn between these two 
classes of laborers. And the same protection wns extended 
over the Hebrew Ebed, when sold to heathen, sojourning in 
the land. Ver. 53, " as a yearly hired servant, a Saukecr, shall 
he be with him"' — and he is rcdemablc at any time; and if 
redeemed, the price shall be estimated, "according to the time 
of an hired servant." Again is it clear, that Ehcd means a 
bought slave, and Saukcer a hired man. 

4. Job. vii: 2. "As a servant, Ebed, earnestly desircth the 
shadow, and as a hireling Saukeer, looketh for the reward of 
his work; so am I," etc. The servant looks for rest, and so 
docs the hireling. But the latter, looks earnestly for his wages 
also. How strongly marked the contrast between the two. — 
The Saukcer anxiously desires the declining shade, that he may 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 29 

rest his weary limbs, and receive his money, and wend his way 
home to his family; but the poor Ebed lacks the stimulus of 
wages: cessation from toil is his utmost reward. 

Let us now apply this distinction to the Fourth and the 
Tenth Commandments. The hired servant is not mentioned in 
either: not in the Fourth, because the householder has no con- 
trol over him, except to direct his labor for the time being. He 
is forbidden by the law to retain his wages over night: Deut. 
xix: 13; — ''the wages of the saukeer shall not abide with thee 
all the night until the morning." But the Ebed and the Amauh 
or female servant or slave, are under the control of the head of 
the house, and he is responsible for their good conduct. 

The hired servant is not named in the tenth commandment, 
because he is not the property of his employer, and there is 
therefore, no room for covetousness. The Saukaur, or wages, 
must go to the servant himself, and must come from the master 
who employs him. Therefore, the fourth precept protects not 
hirelings but slaves — permanent servants: and the tenth, pro- 
hibits interference with the rights of the master, even in desire. 

Here, then, is a distinct recognition of the existence of 
Slavery^ under Old Testament times. Other scriptures — very 
many, might be adduced to the same purport, but the foregoing 
is deemed sufficient, as to direct proofs. Indirectly, that is, in^ 
cidentally to the propositions following, there will be brought 
to view, many other texts, equally conclusive. 



J 



PROPOSITION 11. 

The law of Moses permitted the Hebrews to buy their brother 
Hebrews and to retain them in bondage.^ or slavery, six years. 

Proof 1. — Exod. xxi: 2. — " If thou buy an Hebrew servant 
— an Ebed, — six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall 
go out free for nothing." This implies the fact of Hebrews, 
buying Hebrews; and is unequivocal, to the point in hand. 

Proof 2. — Exod. xxii: 3. — "if he (the thief) have nothing, 
(wherewith to make restitution) then he shall be sold for his 
theft." This, is too plain to need comment. It goes be- 
yond my proposition: it proves that Hebrews might sell their 
brethren, as well as buy them. 

Proof 3.— Lev. xxv: 39.—" If thy brother that dwelleth 
by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee," etc. No 
crime is here mentioned — but poverty; he is sold for his debt. 
Such is the implication on the face of the law. Such also, 
appears to have been the practical constructions of it. See 
2 Kin. iv: 1. — The widow of a prophet called upon Elisha with 
a most pitiful complaint; her husband, a man of God, died in 
debt, " and the creditor is come," says she, "to take unto him my 
two sons, to be bondmen — Ebcdim.''^ Most cruel and distressing: 
as if the creditor should come upon the widow of his pastor, 
as soon as he was dead, drive her from the parsonage, and take 
her sons and make bondmen of them. Now, Elisha does not 
object against the legality of this course. For ought that 
appears, this right and power exists in the creditor. The same 
presumption results from Matth. xviii: 25, where the master, 
commands the unjust servant, who had squandered the master's 
goods, to be sold, and his wife, and his children, and payment 
to be made. The right— the abstract, legal right, to sell the 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 31 

poor man, and his wife, and his children, to pay his debts, is 
recognized: the cruelty of a rigid enforcement of the right, 
all men will reprobate. On the contrary, the law (Lev. xxv: 
35) commanded the Hebrew to relieve his poor brother — not 
to take usury from, nor to oppress him. But this law of sale, 
was much abused at times, and led, by its abuse, to great 
oppression. Nehemiah was called upon to correct such abuses. 
Some of the nobles and rich men, had brought into bondage 
their brethren: Neb. v: 1 — 8. He called an indignation 
meeting against them, and severely rebuked them. But these 
abuses — this rigid severity, shews that the law tolerated the 
sale, whilst it did not allow hard treatment of the unfortunate 
poor. We do not affirm, that the law commanded the sale, 
except in case of crime: we do not say it sanctioned it. All 
that is necessary for our argument is, that the law tolerated it — 
bore with it as an evil, and applied suitable remedies. The 
law did not prohibit an Israelite from buying his poor brother: 
and when he did buy him, it enjoined kind treatment, and 
liberty at the end of six years. 



PKOPOSITION III. 

This state of servitude — this relation of master and slave, might, 
in certain cases, become perpetual for life. 

ExoD. xxi: 5,6. — "And if the servant shall plainly say, I 
love my master, my wife, and my cliildren, I will not go out 
free: then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall 
also bring him inito the door, or unto the door post: and his 
master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall 
serve him forever." Here is an official, legal transaction, in 
presence of the judges^ The government thus recognizes the 
relation of perpetual servitude. The master had in this case 
given him a wife: v. 4. — "If his master have given him a 
wife, and she have borne him sons, or daughters, the wife and 
her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by him- 
self." Now this wife, given by the master, may be a Hebrew 
maidservant, or a Gentile: and it matters little which; for a 
Hebrew girl, sold by her father, did not go out free, at the end 
of six years: v. 7. — "If a man sell his daughter to be a maid- 
servant, she shall not go out, as tlie menservants do." But the 
presumption is, and the assumption we are entiLlcd to, that the 
wife given by the master, was a Gentile or heathen slave; 
concerning whom there can be no doubt (as we shall see) that 
she is a life slave. Now, in this case the law is explicit, the 
children are slaves, when the mother is. We have heard a 
great deal said about the barbarity of the law maxim, pars 
sequitur venlrcm, as containing a doctrine, too horrible, and 
vile, to be spoken in the English language. Brethren ought 
first to en(|uirc whether a doctrine is taught in the Bible, before 
they allow themselves to be horrified by it. Now, Mr. Modera- 
tor, you know, and every scholar in this Synod knows, that the 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 33 

Latin law maxim, is read in plain English, in Exod. xxi: 4, — 
"the wife and her children, shall be her masters" — pars sequitur 
ventrcm — a slave mother makes a slave child. There it is in 
the word of God: and our horrified brethren, dare not deny it. 
Thus, the Ebed who is free at the end of six years, drawn by 
love to his wife and children, consents to become a per- 
petual slave, and the law seals it irrevocably. 

We have nearly the same in Deut. xv: 16,17. "And it 
shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; 
because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with 
thee: then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it through his 
ear, unto the door, and he shall be thy servant forever. And 
also unto thy maidservant, thou shalt do likewise." The only 
difference is, that here, love to the master and his family, is the 
reason why the servant wishes to remain: and also, that the 
maidservant is to be treated in the same way. 

Thus, the law of Moses makes express provision for perpet- 
ual bondage — a servitude for life. True, it is an exception to 
the general rule, that a servant of Hebrew blood, shall be free 
at the end of six years. True, also, it is at first voluntary. I 
say at first. For, should he afterwards change his mind, and 
wish to go free, he cannot: he is a slave for life. But neither 
of these at all alters the case, so as to militate against the truth 
of my proposition which is, that the law recognizes the 
relation of master and slave in perpetuity — for life. 

But, we are told, that voluntary servitude is not slavery. 
To my utter but agreeable surprise, this was distinctly and 
strongly avowed on the floor of Synod, by the principal 
debater on the abolition side of the house. This avowal was 
made, to evade the force of this part of my argument. Let us 
look at so large a concession from our opponents. It is much 
more than I expected. For 1. It maintains, that the moment 
the man consents to be an tbcd forever, he is not an ebed at 
all. Let slavery become voluntary, and it is no longer slavery. 
Well, I admit, it must be an agreeable kind of slavery, to which 
a man consents. Then 2. Charles Clay is not a slave. His 

3 



34 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

master said to him, when in Canada, " Charles, you are now a 
free man, I have no power to take you to the United States 
and keep you as a slave." But Charles chose to come hack. 
He felt that American slavery, is better than British freedom. 
So the little servantmaid, to whom the learned Judge in Boston 
said, " Now, my child, you are free, you may go wherever you 
please; and who replied with strong emotion. "Oh! then, I'll 
go back to my mistress." This little slave, is not a slave. 
Then, 3. All that is necessary, according to the Brethren's own 
showing, to restore the slaves of the South to freedom, is to treat 
them so kindly, that they will voluntarily abide with their mas- 
ters: then they are all free. Then, 4. The ser\'ants of the 
Devil arc all free men, and not slaves of sin and Satan at all: 
for their service is voluntary. They are willing subjects of the 
prince of darkness; consequently, not slaves at all ! 

Indeed, another Brother distinctly admitted, that if all the 
abuses were removed from slavery, as it exists in the United 
States — if all the branches were trimmed off, the deadly 
Upas would be no more a tree: slavery would be annihi- 
lated: there would be only'a stump, like Nebuchadnezzar's, left. 
Thus, has the whole argument been twice given up, in the 
course of this discussion; and thus it is evident, that our brethren 
are contending, not against slavery — not against the relation 
of master and slave, as a permanent obligation upon the one to 
serve the other, but their eyes are attracted, and their hearts are 
affected by the cruel abuses, which too often attend it. Take 
away, says one, the involuntariness — take away the com- 
pulsion; let the servant, serve voluntarily, and I deny that it is 
any longer slavery. Take away, says another, the cruelties 
that accompany it — remove the unkind treatment, the separa- 
tion of husband and wife, of parent and child, — abstract the 
lash, and let kindness and love rule the gang; and slavery is 
no more: a dead stump only is left. 

But now, does not every reasonable and unprejudiced mind 
see, that all these are incidental to the relation of master and 
slave ? Can even prejudice so blind the understunding, that a 
man will deny the existence of such masters, and of such 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 35 

voluntary and happy servants? And yet, do not all the 
legal claims of the master continue? And do not the slaves 
know that they are bound to obey? And do not all see, that no 
change at all has taken place upon the relation itself, its duties 
and its obligations. Kind treatment on the one hand, and the 
voluntariness and cheerfulness of service, which it naturally 
produces, on the other, do not annihilate the relation and can- 
cel the obligations of law. The slave is still a slave, and the 
master is still a master. 

But, a turn has been taken, as was anticipated, upon this 
argument, whereby we have demonstrated, the perpetuity of 
servitude, under the Mosaic law. We are told, by a brother, 
who did not thus argue when dealing in debate with a universa- 
list: — we are told that forever, moans only to the year of 
jubilee — the servant of the bored ear goes out at the jubilee. 

To this I answer, 1. Suppose that his six years service 
ended a short time before the jubilee — say a month — then 
forever, means just thirty days ! Is this, interpretation of 
scripture language; or is it gross perversion? Could Ballou 
himself, or BaJlou's master desire any thing better? If forever 
means but thirty days, or ten days, or one day; then rejoice all 
ye devils and damned spirits; rejoice ye thieves, and liars, and 
drunkard?, and profane swcarcis, and sabbath breakers; for 
behold we bring unto you glad tidings — we proclaim in hell 
a universalist jubilee: you shall be punished indeed ybrerer; but, 
glory be to licentious criticism, forever means but thirty dajs, 
or one day! Do you believe it, Mr. Moderator? Is there a 
devil in hell, so foolish as to believe it ! ! 

2. But this criticism — rather assertion — that the Hebrew word 
Olaum, translated forever and everlasting, means to the year of 
jubilee, may be most clearly disproved from a context where it 
is used on this very subject. In Lev. xxv : 46, speaking of 
heathen bondmen, it is said, "'Ye shall take them as an inherit- 
ance for your children after you, to inherit them for a posses- 
sion ; they shall be your bondmen forever.'^ Does forever mean 
to the jubilee ? Consult, for answer, verses 29, 30, which speak 
of the tenure of houses in walled towns : "And if a man sell a 



36 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION, &c. 

dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it within 
a whole year after it is sold : within a full year may he redeem 
it. And if it be not redeemed within the space of a full year, 
then the house, that is in the walled city, shall be established 
forever^ Le Olaum, to him that bought it, throughout his genera- 
tions ; it shall not go out in the jubilee." Here forever reaches 
beyond the jubilee. The house shall be the property of the 
purchaser and his heirs forever ; does this mean until the jubi- 
lee 1 No, but the reverse. It asserts perpetuity, endlessness of 
title; it shall be his and his children's fonver — "it shall not go 
out in the jubilee." Going out in the jubilee and being estab- 
lished forever, are contradictories and can never agree. 

The same is evident from v. 34, where speaking of the Le- 
vites' property, he says, " the field of the suburbs of their cities, 
may not be sold : for it is their perpehial possession — "for it is 
to them a perpetual {Olaum) possession." Here again, Olaum, 
everlasting, is put into contrast with temporary occupancy ; and 
this with the express design of excluding the idea that these 
lands could ever be alienated. The houses of their villages, the 
Levites could sell, and they would return to them at the jubilee, 
(see V. 33) but their lands could not be sold at all. But if 

Olaum, forever, means to the year of jubilee, then their per- 
petual possession, was the most short lived of all their inheritance ; 

it must cease at the jubilee I 



PROPOSITION IV. 

The Hebrews icere permitted by their law, to buy servants from the 
heathen ; to hold them in perpetual servitude, and to trans- 
mit them as hereditary property to their children. 

Tins is a compound proposition, and may be broken down into 
three distinct parts. 

1. They were permitted to buy servants, male and female, 
from the heathen. Exod. xii : 44, — " Every man's servant that 
is bought for monej', when thou hast circumcised him, then shall 
he eat thereof."' This is decisive as to menservants. 

Second proof. Lev. xxv : 44, 45, 46, "Both thy bond- 
men and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of 
[from, in Hebrew] the heathen that are round about you, of 
[from] them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, 
of [from] the children of the strangers that do sojourn among 
you, of them shall you buy, and of their families, that are with 
you, which they begat in your land : and they shall be your 
possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your 
children after you, to inherit them for a possession ; they shall 
be your bondmen forever : but over your brethren, the children 
of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor." This 
passage is most conclusive as lo the first subdivision. It also 
meets the second, viz: that the servitude is perpetual, "they 
shall be your bondmen forever — Le Olaum.^^ And it is equally 
pertinent to the third. They could transmit these slaves, as he- 
reditary property, to their children. But here, note particular: 
(1) They are properly, "a possession." It is the same Hebrew 
word, as that used, in v. 41, to describe the landed estates to 
which the Israelites returned at the jubilee, "and unto the pos- 
session of his fathers shall he return." It is the same used to de- 
scribe the Redeemer's right in his redeemed people. Psalm ii : 8, 



38 1UE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

"I shall give * * the uttermost parts of the earth for thy pos- 
session.^^ It is the same used to describe Abraham's interest in 
the field of Ephron and the cave of Machpelah, after he paid 
for them, when " the field and the cave that is therein were 
made sure unto Abraham, for a possession of a burying place, 
by the sons of Heth." In short, this word is invariably used, to 
signify ownership in landed estate — not transitory hut permanent 
possession. Let men, therefore, criticise as their fancy directs, 
as to men and women being viewed and treated as property; 
God's word says unequivocally, "they shall be jour possession.^^ 

But, it will be said, this is horrible! human beings bought 
as property, and held as a possession permanent ! Well, abhor 
it then, if it is horrible. But, there it is on the sacred page. I 
have not asserted it, it is God's assertion. I have not said 
it is rignt. Neither, as I suppose, has God affirmed it to be 
right. All I affirm is, that God's law permitted it to Israel. 
Tf you cannot endure it, with God be your controversy ; and 
at his word be yet more horrified. For, (2) This possessioji, 
is pcipetual — Le Olaian, forever shnW they be your bondmen. 
It is a bondage, durable as the life of the parties. Yea, more 
horrible still ! (3) At the death of the master who bought 
the slaves, they do not go out free — they pass down as an in- 
heritance to his children : they stand in all the legal relations 
of real estate. As such, the terms of the law speak of them. 
It is the same word as is used. Num. xxxiii : 54, "Ye shall 
devide the land by lot for an inheritance,^'' etc. And xxxlv : 13, 
"This is the land which ye shall inherit by lot." And Abraham 
inquires, " how shall I know that I shall inherit it ? " 

Such is the condition of heathen slaves under the Mosaic 
liaw. Most unhappy men ! Awful state of degradation ! Hope- 
less bondage to them and to their children after them! 

But, now, is it not obvious, tliat the drcadfulness of their 
state depends very much upon incidental circumstances ? Sup- 
pose they fall into the hands of " believing masters," such as 
Paul speaks of, who will be kind to them and teach them the 
way of salvation through the Messiah, what is there so fearful 
in their condition ? Look what Isaiah says, ch. xiv : 2, con- 



VS, ABOLITIONISM. 39 

cerning heathen people, "And the people [of God] shall take 
them and bring them to their place ; and the house of Israel 
shall possess them in the land of the Lord for servants and maid- 
ens." Assuredly, when the grace of God touches the hearts of 
these slaves and they become God's freedmen, their condition 
is infinitely better than that of their brethren according to the 
flesh, who are afar off from God, and free in a physical sense. 
" I had rather be a door-keeper in the house of my God, than 
to dwell in the tents of wickedness." 



PROPOSITION Y. 

A very considerable degree of severity, in the treatment of servants^ 
was indulged in during the Old Testament times. 

Proof I. Gen. xvi : 6 — 9, "But Abram said unto Sarai, 
Behold thy maid is in thy hand ; do to her as it pleaseth thee : 
and when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face. 

"And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of 
water in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, 
whence camest thou ? and whither wilt thou go 1 And she said, 
I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the 
Lord said unto her. Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself 
under her hands." 

On this remark, — 1st. There is strong presumption, that 
Hagar was a good and faithful servant, and stood high in the 
confidence of her mistress, until she was seduced by her from 
the path of rectitude. Sarai's choice is sufiicient ground for 
this opinion. 2nd. She was in a delicate situation when she be- 
came the subject of this severity. All the circumstances, 
except the unfortunate outbreak of her own pride, seeemed to 
call for peculiar tenderness, and kind treatment. Yet, — 3d. She 
was abused and maltreated to such a degree, as to induce her 



40 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

to flee to the wilderness. " Sarai dealt hardly with her;'' in 
the margin "afflicted her." We can form no idea of this afflic- 
tion but by referring to other places where the word occurs. Isa. 
liii; 7, applies it as descriptive of the affliction of the Man of 
Sorrows. "He was oppressed and he was fi//Z/c/e(^;" so Exod. 
i: 11, it is applied to the afflictions of Israel, " Therefore, they 
did set over them task masters, to ajfiict them;" and Job describes 
by this word the sorrows he experienced at the hand of God, 
xxxi: 11, "Because he hath loosed my cord, and afflicted me." 
We cannot but conclude that this affliction was corporeal, and 
exceedingly hard to bear. 4th. Ilagar ran away from her mis- 
tress. The word describes the act of Shimei's servants, 1 Kin. 
ii: 39, who ran away to Gath. Shimci followed them at the 
peril and subsequent loss of his life, and brought them back. 
Achish, the Philistine prince, gave them up at once. It seems 
he had a higher sense of justice, and the comity of international 
law, than prevails among our modern abolitionists. Ilagar's 
was a simple case of a runaway slave. 5th. The angel of the 
Lord found her. This is none other but the angel Jehovah, the 
mighty Redeemer. He found her alone, it seems, in the wilder- 
ness, in a desolate and exposed condition. 6th. And what was 
God's message to her? Like a modern abolitionist, did he give 
her wings to fly, and bid her be off from such cruelty and op- 
pression? Did he hire some Vanzandt, to conceal her in his 
wagon, and hurry her away toward Egypt, on whose borders 
she then was — her native country; or toward some frozen Cana- 
da, to suffer in an inhospitable climate? Ah! no. Tell it not 
in Hamilton, publish it not in the streets of Cincinnati, lest the 
daughters of Kentucky rejoice; lest the enemies of religion 
triumph. "And the angel Jehovah said unto her, Return to thy 
mistress, and submit thyself under her hands." Such is Jeho- 
vah's command, to a poor, abused and afflicted runaway African 
slave. How different the counsels of infinite wisdom, from those 
of modern abolitionism! 

Pkoof II. — Ex. xxi: 20, 21. " If a man smite his servant, 
or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be 

surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, 
he shall not be punished: for he is his money." 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 41 

This plirase, under his hand, may throw some light on the 
instruction of the angel to Hagar, when he tells her to submit 
herself under the hands of her mistress. It undoubtedly implies 
the use of the hands in severe correction. Here, we see ex- 
tremely violent whipping; and, if death follow, immediately, 
the master shall be punished, to what extent, the law does not 
define. But, if the slave survive the beating a day or two, the 
manslayer goes with impunity — " he shall not be punished." 

The reason of this law of impunity is stated — "for he is 
his money.' It is presumed, that the interest of the master will 
be, in ordinary cases, a sufficient guarantee to the safety of his 
own purchased slave. An appeal is made to the same source 
of protection in ver. 26th and 27th, where we are told, that if a 
master knock out a tooth or an eye of his servant, he shall manu- 
mit him: his freedom is the master's punishment. 

Thomas Clarkson, in Pt. I. Ch. iv, gives a short, and cer- 
tainly not over-wrought account, of the cruelties practiced upon 
slaves. In all the world, until Christianity ameliorated their 
condition, the master exercised the power of life and death 
with perfect impunity, and often in brutal sport. It is so at the 
present day in Africa, as the Landers and other travellers have 
fully shewn. To my purpose, however, this is of no consequence. 
All I want, is to make it evident, that slavery was accompa- 
nied with great cruelties, in ancient times. This has been 
established beyond dispute. Into the details of its brutal 
horrors, it is not necessary to enter: humanity shudders at the 
recital, and Christianity eilone, can apply the remedy. 

Let us here sum up. Five propositions have now been 
demonstrated, from, and by the word of God. 

I. That slavery, existed, during the period over which the 
Old Testament history extends. 

II. That the law of Moses permitted the Hebrews to buy 
their brother Hebrews, and to retain them in bondage or 
slavery six years. 

III. That this state of servitude — this relation of master 
and slave, might, in certain cases, become perpetual for 
life. 



42 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION, &c. 

IV. That the Hebrews were permitted by their law to 
buy servants from the heathen; to hold them in perpetual 
servitude; and to transmit them as hereditary property to their 
children. And — 

Y. That a very considerable degree of severity in the 
treatment of slaves w^as indulged in, during the Old Testament 
times. 

I now add another, which, being a negative proposition, of 
course, I cannot prove; but which I commend to the very 
special attention of our brethren in the opposition. The con- 
tradictory of it, it is necessary for their cause to prove. Should 
any of them adventure upon that task, it is no boasting in me 
to say, they will find an opponent. 



PROPOSITION YI. 

Thai God has nowhere in the Old TcHament prohibited slavery. 
There is no command to this amount, '•''masters let your ser- 
vants go free.'''' The relation of master and slave is no- 
where condemned as a sin, and forbidden to exist. 

The position here taken, is expressed in three forms, to pre- 
vent, if possible, all misapprehension. If any man affirm the 
opposite, let him adduce the proof. If the relation of master 
and servant, in perpetuity or for life, be in itself and apart 
from all cruelties and abuses of power, a horrible sin in the 
sight of God, let us have the text from the Old Testament to 
condemn it. 

Permit me here to throw out a caveate against miscon- 
struction and misrepresentation. Although it is not our business 
more than our opponents, to justify the ways of God to men, 
yet, I remark, God has nowhere sanctioned slavery. To sanction, 
is to approve of and command as a thing that is right, and that 
ought to be. Except in cases of forfeiture of liberty, God has 
not commanded — has not made it obligatory upon man, to 
reduce his fellow to involuntary bondage. On the contary, I 
take the distinction before alluded to, that the Bible tolerates 
slavery. Now, toleration is bearing with — enduring a thing; and 
it implies, that the thing is viewed as an evil. Job tolerated 
his biles, and the foolish behavior of his wife. We tolerate evils 
that cannot be instantly removed. All wearisome labor of 
body, or of mind is an evil. All petulant, peevish and vexatious 
conduct, is an evil. The perpetual harassment to which this 
Synod has been exposed, from year to year, by the Anti Slavery 
party, is an evil, hard to be endured: jet the majority of 
Synod have tolerated it — you have fought against it, as Napoleon 



44 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

said of the Russians at the battle of Smolensk " with passive 
bravery." 

But I hear our tolerated brethren say, how long must this 
evil of slavery be toleratedl Are we never to see the end of it? 
Must all the light of the New Dispensation be spent in vain? 
Cannot this dark spot be illuminated by it? Will you plead 
for its everlasting toleration. 

Be patient Brethren! God has tolerated this dreadful 
evil, more than thirty centuries of years. And he has tolerated 
yet worse evils. He has tolerated you and us, Avith all our sins 
and corruptions upon us; with all our unkind speeches, and 
hard sayings, and heart burnings, and jealousies, and anger, 
and wrath, and murmurings against God. He has borne with 
us in our censures upon his Word and his providence, for this 
very spirit of tolerance, to which we are indebted, for an 
existence out of hell. Why does he not instantly, cut off all 
evil from the earth; either by cutting us off, or by making us 
instantly and perfectly holy? "Nay! but oh man, who art thou 
that rcplicst against God ?" 

Be patient, Brethren, with me, and with God. Let us 
proceed to the New Testament. What are its teachings on the 
subject of slavery? If slavery be the master sin of our world — if 
all other evils sink into insignificance, in comparison of this 
giant crime — if this fearful and desolating sin — this soul-damn- 
ing sin, as brethren in this Synod deem it, abounded under the 
Old Testament, surely the remedying of it will form a promi- 
nent feature of the New Economy. Surely, when the Redeemer 
comes to cleanse the sanctuary, and to purify the altar, which 
have, since the days of Gibeon's enslavement, been polluted by 
slave labor, he will, at least drive away all slave labor from the 
temple, and the altar. He will speak a plain and unequivocal 
language. He will make it to be clearly known, that slavery is 
no longer to be tolerated in the church of God. If Jesus be 
an abolitionist, in the modern sense, surely his new revelation, 
will forever wash out the foul stain of slavery. Mr. Moderator, 
what think you? If our opposing brethren had written the 
New Testament, or any one book of it, would you not expect 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 45 

to find a strong, and plain, and unequivocal testimony against 
slavery, in it? 

But now sir, on the contary, I fearlessly affirm, that there 
is not a sentence in the New Testament, which, either express- 
ly, in so many words, or by fair and just construction, forbids 
slavery. To avoid misconception, let me divide tiiis compound 
proposition. I then declare: 

/. That there is not a sentence in the Mw Testament, which 
expressly forbids the having, and the holding of a slave. 

11. That there is not a sentence in the JVew Testament, which, 
by fair and just interpretation according to the rules of grammar, 
gives ground for the logical inference, that, the simple holding of 
a slave or slaves, is inconsistent with christian profession, and 
christian character. 

The proof of the affirmative, lies on the affirmant; let the 
man, who elects himself to controvert either of these, present 
his proof. But lest none should be forthcoming, let us see how 
near an approximation may be made toward establishing these 
propositions in this negative form. Should any person affirm, 
that between the hours of six A. M. and six P. M. on the 19th 
of September, 1843, the present speaker had kidnapped a slave 
off a steamer lying at the quay in Cincinnati, I could prove a 
negative, by proving an alibi — by proving my continual pres- 
ence during that period of time in this, or the adjoining viliafe. 
Let us look into the New Testament for abolitionism, and see 
how far an alibi can be supported. 

1. My first subordinate proposition here, is, that the Greek 
word, doulos, usually translated servant, properly and commonly 
means a person held to service for life — a slave. 

This word occurs, according to Schmidius, about one hund- 
red and twenty-five times in the New Testament. Of these, 
omitting the parallel places in the last three Gospels, the follow- 
ing is a general classification, viz : — 



34 times 


34 


(( 


10 


ii 


6 


u 


1 


ii 


1 


t; 


1 


a 


1 


(( 



46 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

1. It is applied to servants of God and of Christ, 

2. To servants of men, such as the householder 

and the owner of the vineyard, 

3. To the king who made the supper, and to him 

who took acount of his servants, 

4. To servants of sin and Satan, 

5. To the servant of the centurion, Matth. viii : 5, 

6. To Christians, as servants to each other, 

Matth. xx: 27, - - - 

7. To Christ, as God's servant, Phil, ii: 7, 

8. To Judaizing Christians, Gal. iv: 7, 

In all, .... 88 « 

leaving about 37 as parallels. 

Let us now see, whether, in all these, the idea of continu- 
ous, perpetual servitude be not included. 

The first class — the servants of God and of his Christ arc 
life servants; bound under the most absolute authority to honor 
and obey and submit to his commands. They profess so to be. 
They have come near to the door-post, and their ears have been 
pierced through with the arrows of his conviction, and they are his 
forever. JMoreover, they were unrvilling, when he bought them 
with a price, and they were unwilling until he changed them 
by his law, and made them " both to will and to do of his own 
good pleasure." They are servants forever, " under the yoke," — 
" take my yoke upon you." 

Passing the second class, as the one in controversy, we 
notice the third, Matth. xviii: 23, etc., and xxii: 3, etc. The 
master in the former, like many in our day, had entrusted much 
of his property to his servants, to be employed for his advan- 
tage; and thus, one of them was found to have acted very 
unfaithfully — he had squandered his lord's money. His master, 
just as masters now do, commanded him to be sold, and his wife 
and cliildren. Now, if doulos does not express the relation of 
slavery — if it mean here a hired sfrro»/, how can we under- 
stand tlie transaction? Wiierc is the law to sell a hired servant? 
And if it be said, he was sold under the Law, which makes 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 47 

indebtedness a crime, rendering the debtor obnoxious to sale, 
then we have slavery recognized. Take it either way, then, 
you have the relation of perpetual servitude. 

The evidence is equally plain, that the servants of the king, 
in waiting upon the marriage supper, were not hirelings, but 
perpetual servants. And here we may observe, as was remarked 
of the Hebrew terms, the Greek word misthotos, means a hired 
person, one employed to work for wages, for a period long or 
short as the contract may be: such was the kind of service per- 
formed on Zebedee's fishing boat. James and John " left their 
father, Zebedee, in the ship, with the hired servants.'''' And the 
Savior speaks of this kind of labor as not so reputable and trust- 
worthy as the c?om/os; Jno. x: 12,13: "But he that is an hire- 
ling and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth 
the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep and fleeth. The hire- 
ling, misthotos, fleeth because he is an hirelings and careth not 
for the sheep."' It would seem that the doulos, the permanent 
servant, was the more trustworthy. Accordingly, it is universally 
agreed that the servants in the parable of the supper, represent 
the gospel ministers — permanent officers in Christ's house, who 
would therefore be very unsuitably represented by the relation of 
a hireling, a temporary servant, working for wages. Besides, the 
kind of service at this feast is just such as slaves, or permanent 
servants are usually employed at. Farther, the invited guests 
killed some of the servants, which it is not conceivable they 
would have done, had they been hired persons. These things, 
in connection with the fact, that the historian does not use mis- 
thotos — a word uniformly applied to the temporary relation of a 
hired person, as faithfulness to historical verity required, if (he 
relation had been temporary — these, I say, must convince the 
candid, that doulos means the permanent relation of a life 
servant. 

The fourth class relates to slaves of sin and of Satan, 
John viii: 34; "Verily, verily, I say unto you, whosoever commit- 
cth sin is the servant, doidos, of sin. And the servant abideth 
not in the house [the family apartment] forever : but the son 
abideth ever. If, then, the Son make you free, ye are free in- 



48 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

deed." Here the doulos is contradisUnguIshed from the son, and 
also from the free person. So, Rom. vi: 17, " God be thanked, 
that ye were the servants^ douloi. of sin.'" And, 2 Pet. ii: 19, 
"While they promise them liberty, they, themselves, are the 
servants, douloi, of corruption : for of whom a man is overcome, 
of the same is he brought in bondage;" — he is made a doulos. 
Here again, servant is contrasted with free. Besides, there is 
express reference to the ancient and universal custom of holding 
and accounting prisoners of war as slaves. Men are taken cap- 
tive by the devil, and are the servants of their captor. We 
need not here dwell, to show that it is a base bondage under 
which men are held, to sin and Satan, and that it is without 
limit in itself — it is designed by the master and assented to by 
the slave, that he shall serve forever; and so it will prove in 
every case where our Redeemer does not interfere, and deliver 
by his almighty power, the poor slave from his cruel and yet 
voluntary bondage. 

Case fifth, is that of the doulos of the Roman centurion 
or captain. That slavery prevailed all over the Roman Empire 
at this time, and that it was a most absolute and degraded sla- 
very, wherein the master had the power of life and death at his 
own option, will not be controverted by any, whose reputation 
for scholarship entitles them to any notice at all. We cannot, 
surely, be expected to prove that the captain's servant was a 
slave. For a man to assert the contrary, places him hors dii 
combat. 

Case sixth, relates to the services required from one Chris- 
tian to another, and they are undoubtedly permanent, and of 
perpetual obligation. 

So the seventh, an insulated instance, describes the relation 
of Christ to God the Father. That it is permanent and for life, 
is obvious, and involves absolute submission in all things. 

The other insulated case is, that of the judaizing Christian, 
Gal. iv: 7, who makes the ceremonial law a yoke of bondage, 
and himself a slave to it. 

Thus, if there is any exception to the absoluteness and per- 
manency of the obligation, and the servitude, expressed by thi* 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 49 

term, doulos, it must be found in the second class: all the others 
imply entire subjection, and that without limit, as long as the 
related parties exist. 

The servants of the householder, who had sowed good 
seed in his field; and of the man who delivered his talents 
for improvement, arc so similar to the case of the marriage 
supper, that the same reflections are mainly applicable to these. 
So, also, of the owner of the vineyard, Matth. xxi: 35, etc. The 
only other case in the Gospels, that of the priest's servant, whose 
ear was cut off — may easily be understood, by reference to the 
laws already cited, permitting the priests to buy servants: the 
others, it is not my intention to go aver, in the detail. It would 
be tedious, and would lead to the conviction, that, without one 
exception, in all the contexts, the idea of absolute and perma- 
manent bondage to service, would be found to harmonize best, 
with the drift and meaning of the passages respectively. Per- 
suaded I am, the case never will be made out, where doulos. 
necessarily means a temporary servitude, at the option of the 
servant. Many of the remaining passages, will, however, come 
up in other connections. Meanwhile, I rest in the belief, that 
the great mass of unprejudiced minds, must admit, that doulos 
properly means a slave. 

Let us, however, make this clear to a demonstration, by 
the argument from contrast. If we find two words, used in 
opposition to each other, the meaning of one being ascertained, 
will forcibly illustrate that of the other. Now, freeman and 
slave are such terms — they express opposite ideas. He who is 
free, cannot, at the same time, and in the same respect, manner, 
and sense, be a slave. In different senses, such opposite terms 
may agree. A man may be a slave to tobacco and whiskey, 
and yet a freeman, in a civil sense. Still, freedom and slavery 
are opposites ; and if I shew that to be free means a state 
wherein a man is under no obligation to work or labor for 
another — the other has no power or claim over him, so as to 
compel him to work; and if I shew that this state is contrasted 
to another, as its opposite; then, that other is a state of slavery 
and bondage. 



50 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

Here let me refer to the cases already cited for another 
purpose: Johnviii: 34; "He that committcth sin, is the doulos 
or servant of sin; but if the Son make him free, then he is fire 
indeed." Here doulos and cleuihcros — a slave and a free man are 
contrasted. Again, in Rom. vi: 17; "Ye were the douloi, ser- 
vants of sin; but being made free-^'' here is the same contrast. 
So also, 2 Pet. ii: 19; "While they promise them liberty, 
dcutheria^ they themselves are the douloi, slaves of corruption. 
I Cor. vii: 21, 22; "Art thou called, being a servant, doulos, 
care not for it: but if thou maycst be made free, use it rather. 
For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, doulos, is the 
Lord's freeman — rather freed man — apcleulheros \ likewise, 
also, he that is called being free, eleulheros, is Christ's servant, 
doulos.'''' Here, the contrast is plain and direct, and three times 
repeated. 1 Cor. xii: 13, "Whether we be Jews or Gen- 
tiles; whether we be bond or free, douloi or eleutheroi {^ Gal. 
iii: 2S, " There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, 
doulos nov eleulheros-^'' Col. iii: 11, "There is neither bond nor 
free, doulos nov eleulheros-^'' Rev. vi: 15, "And every bondman 
and every freeman: every doulos and every eleulheros-^'' Rev. 
xiii: IG, "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and 
poor, free and bond, eleutherous and doulous.'''' Rev. xix: 18, 
" And the flesh of all men, both free and bond, clcutheroi and 
douloi, both small and great.*' 

Thus, by an accumulation of evidence, even to weariness, 
it is demonstrated that doulos means a slave, as certainly as elen- 
theros means a freeman. Here are twelve distinct and unequivo- 
cal instances of contrast. I take it, then, as most conclusively 
proved, that doulos properly means a slave — a person under 
absolute authority for life to a master. 

2. Thi second subordinate proposition rviih an inference, is, 
that, Paul advises servants to abide quietly in their condition. 
TTiis he could not do if the relation of master and slave vas m 
itself a sin. 

1 Cor. vii: 20 — 21, "Let every man abide in the same calling, 
wherein he was called. Art thou,"' etc, as above. "Yc are bought 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 51 

with a price, be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let 
every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God." 

Here, note, 1. — This is a spiritual call — that inward 
vocation of the Holy Ghost, whereby a man is made to hear 
and to obey the Gospel, in a spiritual sense. He who is thus 
called is a converted man. But there is a modified sense, in 
which the word is used to signify a man's employment — his 
state and condition in this world's affairs. And the Apostle 
indulges a play upon this sense. In verse 17, he settles the 
principle: "But as God hath distributed to every man, as the 
Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I 
in all the churches." The gospel does not come to break up 
the social relations. If a hired girl is converted, it does not 
hence follow, that she must sit at table, and her employer take 
turns with her in the house-work, and table-waiting. Paul was 
not a Icveler in this respect. But let every one, pursue his 
business honestly. "Is any man called, being circumcised? let 
him not become uncircumcised. Is any called, being uncir- 
cumcised? let him not be circumcised." These outward circum- 
stances are trifles. What a man's business is — what his con- 
dition in life, is a small matter, if only he has the spiritual 
vocation. 2. Among the called, at Corinth, were found some 
servants — doulous — slaves. Then sprang up the question: if I 
am called into the service of Jesus Christ, can I any longer be 
obedient to an earthly master? Can a man serve two masters? 
If I have taken Christ's yoke upon me, how can I be and con- 
tinue a doulos to my old master who bought me? Now, it is 
easy to see, that if Paul had preached abolitionism, there would 
have been directly a slave insurrection at Corinth. If he had 
decided, that conversion to Christianity nullified the masters 
right to control his slave, and made him free; it would have 
brought Christianity into direct collision with the civil and do- 
mestic relations of the whole Roman world. But Paul was no 
abolitionist: he would not interfere, in the least, with the mas- 
ter's authority. He had, a little above, decided in favor of 
another social relation. Marriage, though consummated in a 
pagan state, he says, is binding, even after one of the parties 



52 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

has been converted to Christianity. The question had been 
raised, Can I be the spouse of Christ, and also of a pagan hus- 
band at the same time. Certainly, says Paul, the one is spir- 
itual, the other a natural — moral relation: "Let not the wife 
depart from her husband:" so, here, let not the servant depart 
from his master. This is the third remark: — The relation 
is not to be renounced — "Let every man wherein he is called, 
therein abide." If he is a doulos, let him remain contented: he 
can be a slave in regard to temporal things; and, yet, a freeman 
in regard to spiritual things. There is no necessary collision 
between the claims of the two masters. If your earthly mas- 
ter acts uprightly, he will never require you to do an act for bid- 
den by your ^heavenly master. But should such case occur; 
why, then obey God; and sufier whatever punishment man 
chooses to inflict. 4. Manumission was often practiced in the Ro- 
man and Grecian world. Paul advises the servant, if his mas- 
ter olFcr to manumit him, to accept his freedom with grati- 
tude — "use it rather." When grace touched the master's 
heart, and especially if his conversion, as doubtless was often 
the case, was brought about by the patient and quiet obedi- 
ence and manifest improvement of his converted slaves, it can- 
not be doubted, he often freed his servants: and this is God's 
plan of abolition. A person who in the phrase "use it rather," 
can find a warrant for a slave insurrection; — for robbery, theft, 
and murder, gives melancholy evidence, that he himself is the 
slave of his own pride and wicked passions. 5. Paul points 
out the methcd of the spiritual freedom — it was by purchase: 
"Ye are bought with a price, be not ye the servants of men." 
Most violently and blindly has this passage been abused, to the 
encouragement of slave insurrections; "be not ye the servants 
of men" — this, we, Mr. Moderator, have heard the subject of 
song here; contrary to the obvious, plain meaning of the whole 
context. It has been time after time harped upon, as evidence, 
that slaves are forbidden to serve men; whereas, the whole drift 
of the context enjoins submission. "Ye are bought with a price," 
now, in what sense? Is it not undeniable, that the price here is 
Christ's blood? And must it not follow that the servitude into 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 53 

which this spiritual purch ise brings them, is a spiritual servitude? 
Do thej not take Christ's yoke on them? And yet, these breth- 
ren insist on it, that "be not ye the servants of men," is a natu- 
ral servitude! "Don't obey your masters according to the flesh; 
resist them, they have no right to command you, and you do 
wrong in obeying; 'be not ye the servants of men.'" Did 
you ever hear of such horrible perversion? Can this be the 
true meaning, when other passages so numerous, command the 
very contrary? "servants obey your masters." We must say, 
such a construction is not only violent, but it is disingenuous; 
and no man could for a moment allow himself in it, but that the 
heat of excitement, and the warmth of controversy, blinds the 
mind and hurries the zealot over all rules of reason and of right. 
No commentator ever entertained such an idea: until modern 
abolitionism invented it, the world, I presume, was ignorant 
of such a construction. But it is a fair sample of the logic of 
excited feeling. Paul urges the doulos to abide content in his 
condition; because, though a servant of man, he is Christ's freed- 
man — a spiritual freeman, but a slave civilly. But he must 
not abide the doulos of man, say these brethren — must not be 
civilly a slave; because he has been spiritually bought with a 
price. The apostle may contradict himself, but he must not 
teach the duty of servants to obey their own masters ! When 
he says, "be not ye the douloi of men," he must not mean 
spiritually, but naturally ! ! 

3. The Third Subordinate Proposition, with an inference. — 
The JVew Testament recognizes some masters as good men — true 
and faithful believers: therefore, the relation of master and slave 
may exist, consistently with christian character and prof ession. 

Pkoof I. — Matth. viii: 9, 10; "The centurion answered and 
said. Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under 
ray roof: but speak the word only, and my servant, doulos shall be 
healed. When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them 
that followed. Verily, I say unto you, I have not found so great 
faith, no, not in Israel." Here is a slave holder whose faith 



54 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

stands above suspicion. But we have been told that every man 
who is guilty of slave holding, if he die without repenting of this 
sin, will go to hell! How differently the Savior and some of 
his disciples judge! 

Proof II. -By Eph. i: 1 ; we learn that the epistle is address- 
ed " to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in 
Chiist Jesus." And by vi: 9, we learn that among these faithful 
brethren are masters: "And ye masters, do tlie same things un- 
to them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master 
[Christ?] also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons 
with him. Finally, my brethren," etc. Thus slave holders 
are recognised as faithful believers; and no order is given to 
cease to be slave holders. 

Proof III. — 1 Tim. vi: 2; "And they that have believing 
masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; 
but rather do them service, because they arc faithful and be- 
loved, partakers of the benefit.*' Here the slaves — douloi, arc 
commanded to submit; because their masters are believers — 
faithful and beloved brethren, partakers of the grace of our 
Lord. 

Proof IV. — Phil. 5: Paul addressing this slave holdei- 
says he had heard "of thy love and faith, which thou hast to- 
ward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints." 

So we might cite all the cases where masters are com- 
manded to their duties; for they are in every instance addressed 
as Christian masters; and the same is true of the slaves- Clear- 
ly then, the inference follows, that this relation is not inconsis- 
tent with Christian character and profession. 

4. The Fourth Subordinalc Proposition. — The JVcio Tcstamenl 
recognises the existence of Slavcri/. 

5. The Fifth Subordinate Proposition. — The JS^cw Testament 
prescribes the duties of servants to their masters, and of masters to 
their servants — enjoining' obedience to the one, and land treatment 
from the other. 

Meanwhile, no injunction is laid upon masters to liberate their 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 55 

llaves; nor is there any hint given to slaves, to run away from 
their masters. All this I shall prove by plain and direct Scrip- 
tures, and then shall deduce some legitimate conclusions. 

Proof I. — Titus ii: 9, 10; "Exhort servants — doulous — 
to be obedient unto their own masters — despoluis — and to 
please them well in all things; not answering again, not pur- 
loining, [stealing] but shewing all good fidelity; that they may 
adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things." 

It is important to remark that this, and most of the subse- 
quent proofs, are found in the midst of contexts where the 
leading social relations of life are dwelt upon, and their duties 
pointed out. Here "the aged men," and "the aged women;" 
"the young women," and "young men" are exhorted. In 
some of the following cases, husbands and wives, parents and 
children, magistrates and subjects are mentioned — and just 
among them, servants and masters; recognizing it as an existing 
relation. 

On this passage, note 1. — The servants, f/o?f^oMs, are ex- 
horted to be obedient to their own masters, dcspotais, despots, 
absolute masters. It is the strongest term the Greek language 
knows, to express absolute and arbitrary power. 

2. That this obedience should be cheerful and hearty — not 
with an ill grace, a surly, and dissatisfied, and hesitating 
manner. 

3. They are commanded not to steal their master's proper- 
ty; but to feci an interest in his welfare, and to be faithful in 
looking after it. 

How different in all three respects this, from the teachings 
of modern anti slavery doctors! They teach that slaves may, 
and ought to disobey their masters — to run off", to steal their 
master's, or any person's horse, saddle, bridle, food, clothing, 
anything that may be necessary to facilitate their escape. Such 
morality may be found in the abolition journals of the day. 

4. The glory of God is promoted by the cheerful obedience 
and faithful conduct of christian slaves. Such conduct adoi^ns 
the doctrine of God our Savior. Now, we put it to our Brethren, 
whether this course of conduct, in christian slaves, is not much 
more likely to win their masters, and all others to embrace the 



56 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

doctrine from which it springs, than the stealing and running 
off, which they recommend. Are those who engage in running 
negroes to Canada, "adorning the doctrine of God our Savior 
in all things?" We put it to your consciences, Brethren! 

Proof II. — Col. iii: 23. iv: 1. — "Servants obey in all 
things, your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, 
as menpleasers; hut in 'singleness of heart, fearing God: And 
whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto 
men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of 
the inheritance: for yc serve the Lord Christ. But he that 
doeth wrong, shall receive for the wrong which he hath done; 
and there is no respect of persons. Masters, give unto your 
servants, that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also 
have a master in heaven." 

1. Here, strict obedience is enjoined to masters, "according 
to the flesh" — that is, masters in regard to worldly things. 2. This 
obedience is not merely outward, but inward; sincerely, and 
truly rendered. In which he shews how obedience in carnal 
things is consistent with spiritual obedience to the Lord. In 
obeying your earthly masters, in all things, [lawful, that is] you 
obey your heavenly master too — "ye serve the Lord Christ." 
3. The servant, doulos^ — the slave that docs wrong — that with- 
holds due service from his master — that purloins, or is in any 
way unfaithful, shall be punished for his wrong doing. If he 
obey the counsels of modern abolitionists, God the Redeemer 
will judge him. 4. As injustice is forl)iddcn to the servants; so 
injustice is forbidden to the masters. Wrong is prohibited on 
both sides. For wrong, the master will be punished as well as 
the slave. 

But the question arises, what is just and equal? Our 
Brethren will say, that it means, among other things, liberty. 
But this text does not say so, nor any other. On the contrary, 
it is implied that the relation continues. The masters are 
masters still; and the slaves arc slaves still; and it is to the 
existing relation the whole context applies. If the relation is 
annihilated, tiie duties of obedience, here enjoined, can no 
longer exist. Tliis then is mere subterfuge. What is just and 
equal? Undoubtedly, kind treatment; comfortable food and 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 57 

raiment, and instruction in all the blessed doctrines of the 
Bible. These things, good, believing masters do; and in so 
doing obey God, and give more than is commonly given to hired 
servants. We are often told that they ought to set them free 
and pay them wages. Well, perhaps they ought to free them. 
But this will depend upon circumstances. As to paying w^ages, 
it is notorious, and the abolitionists have shewn it a hundred 
times, that the slaves are often paid higher wages, than the free 
blacks or whites: using the term wages in the strict sense of 
political economy. " We must be careful, says Prof. Vethake, 
(p. 33) not to confound the real wages of the laborer, with his 
money wages. The latter, as has been before stated, are only 
instrumental in procuring the former. The laborer who 
receives money for his services, exchanges it again for the 
necessaries and comforts of life, both of a material and imma- 
terial nature, which he is enabled by means of it to obtain; and 
the money is only transitorily in his possession." The real 
wages of labor are food, clothing, houscroom, education — all 
the necessaries and comforts of life. But now it is proverbial 
that many slaves devour their masters — they consume more 
than they produce — they receive more wages than they 
earn — they get more than is just and equal. And this con- 
stitutes an argument, not on moral or religious grounds, but 
simply on the ground of political economy, against the whole 
system; which I think entirely imanswerable. It has been 
demonstrated ten thousand times, that slave labor is upon the 
whole the dearest, and cannot compete with free labor. Would 
you, Mr. Moderator, or any of these brethren, take a common 
laborer, with a ftimily, and obligate yourself to feed, clothe, 
house and educate them as laborers and christians at your own 
cost, making yourself, and your heirs liable for them, for the 
space of forty years? I mean, all moral considerations aside, 
and receiving the question as a mere dollar and cent matter — 
would you? Where is the man that would do it? Still, the 
deficient production results from the system; and combined with 
a law before mentioned, constitutes the physical necessity, 
whereby the Creator provides for removing the evils of oppres- 
sive bondage. But we may not run out in this direction. 



58 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

Proof III. — 1 Pet. ii: 18. — " Servants, be subject to jour 
masters, with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but 
also to the frovvard." Tliis is part of a context, where the 
relative duties of social life, are enjoined — magistrates and 
subjects, servants and masters, husbands and wives, are ad- 
dressed. 

1. The term servant, is different; it is, oikeies, a house 
servant. But that it implies here, a slave, is evident, from the 
treatment to which they were exposed — "they suffered 
wrongfully" — " were buffeted" — " endured grief," and are com- 
manded to submit and bear it patiently, out of conscience 
toward God. Now this is inconceivable, in regard to hired 
servants, or any temporary engagement. 

2. The subjection enjoined is to clespolais, absolute masters. 

3. The term by which he expresses the subjection, is also 
strong : it means the absolute, rigid subordination of military 
government; where not the least hesitancy, or delay, or demur- 
ring, is tolerated. 

4. The fear with which they are to submit, also shews the 
relation of master and slave. 

The whole drift of the passage is plain and easy. It 
enforces the duty of submission, in all things not sinlul before 
God, upon the slaves; even in extrem.e cases of harsh and 
cruel treatment; and that from the consideration that the God 
whom they serve, Mill be glorified by it, and the religion they 
profess, will be commended to the hearts of all men. Could 
Peter, moved by the Holy Ghost, have done all this, if the very 
relation of master and slave, was, in itself, and independently 
of all contingent abuses, a sinful relation? 

Piioor IV. — Philemon was a slave holder, at least, if own- 
ing one slave, makes a man a slave holder. Onesimus his 
slave, had fallen under the influence of bad counsel; whether 
the dictate of his own heart, or of some ancient anti slavery 
partizan. lie ran olf fiom his master, who resided at Colosse, 
a city in the interior of Asia Minor. See Col. iv: 8,9. — '• Tychi- 
cus have I sent unto you * * * ^vith Onesimus, a faithful 
and beloved brother, who is one of you.*' This may shew a 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 59 

special reason, why Paul, in this epistle to the Collossians, 
which was undoubtedly carried by Tychicus and Onesimus, 
presses, as we have seen, the duties of servants to their masters, 
according to the flesh. The letter was carried by a runaway 
slave, now returned to his sound mind, and hereby commanded 
to obey his master. 

This runaway found himself at Rome, and came to hear 
Paul preach in his chains, in his own hired house; and was 
through grace, converted unto God: after which Paul sent him 
back to his master. Let us note particulars. 1. The apostle 
recognizes Philemon's right to Onesimus' service — ver. 13, 14, 
" Whom I would have retained with mc, that in thy stead he 
might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel. But 
without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should 
not be as it were of necessity, but willingly." Paul lived in 
his own hired house, yet he was in chains, and needed some 
person to do his errands, lay in and cook his food, wash his 
clothes, etc, etc., These kind of services, Philemon had done, 
or caused to be done, for the apostle, when at Collosse, as is most 
likely, from this verse and the 22, where he requests him to 
"prepare me also a lodging." But, however much Paul needed 
Onesimus, and however assured he felt, that did Philemon the 
master, know the situation of his beloved friend the apostle, 
he would have most cheerfully consented, to let Onesimus stay 
and attend upon him, yet could he not consent to keep him, 
without his master's expressed will. 

2. Onesimus was a slave. Paul urges Philemon to receive 
him " not now as a doulos, but above a doulos, a brother beloved, 
especially to me; but how much more unto thee, bolh in the 
flesh, and in the Lord."' 

" Not now" — oukete — 7iot any longer^ as a doulos. Here is 
the distinct implication that heretofore, he had been treated as 
a slave — a doulos — but now, no longer is he so to be treated. 
This alludes to the Levitical law, already explained. Lev. xxv: 
39 — 42. The Hebrew is to treat his brother Hebrew, now his 
Ebed — his doulos — his slave — not like slaves are commonly 
treated, with rigor, but as saukeers — hired men are usually 
treated, with kindness and lenity. JVoz«, says Paul, this doulos 



60 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

is a brother, and our law requires such, to he kindly treated, and 
""I know that you will do even more than I say," ver. 21. 

3. In this last expression, there is a hint at emancipation. 
It is highly probable, that Philemon not only treated him kindly, 
but set him free and assisted him to some farther education, and 
thus enabled him to enter the ministry. Such things have been 
done, and are continually doing in our own day, in regard to 
indented apprentices and even to slaves. Several talented and 
efficient preachers now in Liberia were thus manumitted. But 
now, this very thing, which I understood to be admitted by 
some of our Anti Slavery brethren, contains the whole for 
which I am here contending, viz: that slavery existed, and 
obedience was commanded, in the New Testament. 

4. Paul does not command Philemon to liberate Onesimus. 
He docs not even command him to receive him and treat him 
kindly. But he does say he might do this latter — he has 
authority to enjoin — to command — ver. 8: yet he prefers to 
put himself in the position of an equal with Philemon, and 
entreat him. From this it has been argued — rather assumed, 
that he had power to order Philemon to emancipate him, but 
forbore to exercise it. This is wholly gratuitous, groundless 
and false. The poicer which, in verse 8, he asserts lie has, he 
turns into an entreaty, and it is, that the master would receive 
his slave and treat him no longer as a slave, but according to 
the law, with lenity, as a brother. 

5. Another point illustrated here, is the pilfering character 
of runaway slaves. Onesimus had taken the precaution, in our 
day given as advice by some Abolitionists, to supply his pockets, 
from his masters stores, before he left him. Ver. 18, "If 
he have wronged thee, or owcth thee aught, put that on mine 
account, etc." So punctiliously regardful is he of the masters 
rights, that he renders himself liable, as a surety, for all the 
property the slave may have stolen from his master. Again, 
Mr. Moderator, let me call your attention, to the strong contrast 
between the morality of the New Testament, and that of 
modern Abolitionism. This encourages the slave to disobey, to 
steal, to run off; that commands him to return, to be honest, to 
be obedient. 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 61 

But a recent discovery has been made in the laboratory of 
Greek criticism. It is now ascertained, that Onesimus was 
merely the younger brother of Philemon — that he did not like 
the vigilant and close treatment of his older brother, who was 
his legal guardian — that he went off, and Paul sent him back. 
Now Mr. Moderator, you must not smile at this. It is, indeed, 
ludicrous; but then, laughable as the thing is in itself, we must 
not always treat things with that contempt, which their merits 
demand. This criticism is advanced, in serious earnest, and we 
must bite in our lips and seem to be grave in our reply. 

Well, on what is this new theory founded? Why simply 
on the phrase in the Jlesh, ver. 16. It is asserted that Onesimus 
was a brother of Philemon both "in the flesh and in the Lord.'' 
Ah! but does the text say this? Or does it say that Onesimus 
was beloved — "both in the flesh" — that is in regard to civil and 
temporal affairs "and in the Lord" — that is in regard to spirit- 
ual things? It needs not Greek spectacles to see, that there 
is a comparison drawn between, Paul and Philemon, in- reference 
to the measure, or degree of attached feeling towards Onesi- 
mus. Paul says that Onesimus is now a brother — to whom? 
To Philemon and to Paul too — tho' he calls him his son : — but 
he is a beloved brother — beloved to whom? — "to me;" yes and 
"unto thee." But in what degree, is he beloved to them 
respectively? Why, "especially." But especially/ whtifi Is it 
especially beloved, or is it especially a brother'^. Which word 
does the adverb especially, qualify? — beloved or brotherl Most 
assuredly it cannot qualify brother-, but it can, and does quali/y 
beloved: he is beloved in a high degree — especially to me; but 
in a higher degree — " how much more to thee" — beloved, hoi\\ 
in the flesh, and in the Lord. Clearly, if the thing were pos- 
sible that the adverb, especially, and the adverbial phrase, hotc 
much viure, could qualify brother, then we would have the 
ludicrous idea presented, of Onesimus being^ a brother germain 
to Paul and to Philemon both; but that he wets more a brother 
to Philemon, than to Paul!!" 

There are two other objections to this novel criticism. It 
requires proof that the older brother was a master and the 
younger his slave, doulos. We doubt much whether any sane 



62 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

man will undertake to prove this historically. The other is, 
that the phrase, in the Jl'ssh, is the same in its meaning, with ac- 
cording to the Jlesh, which we have seen used in the epistle to 
the Colossians, written at the same time with that to Philemon, 
and sent by the same messengers. The sense is not equivocal — 
in the Jlesh, or according to the Jlcsh, is simply, as to zoorldly affairs; 
and in the spirit, or in the Lord, or according to the spirit, as to 
spiritual affairs. 

Proof V. — Eph. vi: 5 — 9, "Servants he obedient unto 
them who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and 
trembling, in singleness of your heart as unto Christ. * And 
ye masters, do the same things unto them ; forbearing threaten- 
ing," etc. 

Here again, all the points are sustained. The relation ex- 
ists. The duties of servants — slaves, are prescribed, in peremp- 
tory language. The distinction is noted between the master, as 
to the flesh — as to worldly atFairs, and Christ, the spiritual mas- 
ter, and the general consistency of their service to both; and 
the reward of faithfulness is held out as motive. The masters 
are commanded 'Ho do the same things,'' i. e. to carry out the 
same spirit of good will toward them, in gentle and kind treat- 
ment, which the servants are commanded to practice, and with 
an eye to their own accountability to God. Not one word can 
here be found, encouraging servants to steal a horse and run 
away; not one hint to masters about the sin of slavery, and the 
duty of repenting of it, and no command to manumit their 
slaves. 

Proof VI. — 1 Tim. vi: 1 — 5, " I^et as many servants as 
are under the yoke, count their own masters worthy of all hon- 
or, that the name of God, and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 
And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, 
because they are brethren, but rather do them service, because 
they are faithful and beloved — partakers of the benefit. These 
things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and con- 
sent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is 
proud, knowing nothing; but doting about questions, and strifes 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 63 

of words; whereof cometh envy, strife, railing, evil surmisings 
perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the 
truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. 
We are to bear in mind, that these are among the instruc- 
tions given by an aged and experienced minister, under the spirit 
of inspiration, to a youth in the service. When we connect 
with this the very brief space covered by the whole epistle, we 
must conclude that Paul thought the subject of slavery a deli- 
cate and important one, that he could afford it so much space. 
Let us carefully analyze the context. 

1. The persons spokon to are slaves, douloi, and the cor- 
relate term is despotoi — masters — absolute in authority over 
them. 

2. But the spirit of inspiration, foreseeing the mischief 
which misguided zeal v/ould occasion in the premises, and the 
twisting and wrenching of scripture, which would attend its 
efforts, has appended a phrase, which cuts off the possibility of 
plausible cavil. These douloi are under the yoke, a phrase which 
undoubtedly signifies bondage, deep and degraded slavery. This 
phrase does not again occur in the New Testament. The term 
yoke, however, does occur five times: rather the Greek word 
zugos, Matth. xi: 29,30, it is used to signify that perpetual, per- 
fect, absolute, unmurmuring and everlasting subjection, under 
which God's redeemed are laid to serve him. "Take my yoke 
upon you, and learn of me * * for my yoke is easy, and my 
burden is light." In Acts xv: 10, it signifies the slavery into 
which some labored to bring the Gentile converts, to the cere- 
monial law. * * "Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon 
the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were 
able to bear." In Gal. v: 1, the same is called "a yoke of bond- 
age." In Rev. vi: 5, the woi-d is correctly translated a pair of 
balances." 

I^et us inquire how the same Greek word is used, in the 
Scptuagint — the old Greek translation of the Old Testament. 
Its meaning there may assist us here. If it is there a symbol 
of bondage — a type of slavery, it creates a strong presumption 
that it is so here also. 



64 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

It is used some fifteen times as the translation of a word 
that signifies a pair of balances, mozanayim, as in Lev. xix: 36, 
Job vi: 2, and xxxi: 6, Ps. Ixii: 9, Pro v. xi: 1, etc. 

Again, it is used for O/, a word that means the instument 
by which oxen or beasts of burden draw. This is the natural 
and proper sense: as in Num. xix: 2, "bring thee a red heif- 
er * * upon which never came yoke." So, Deut. xxi: 3, 
1 Sam. vi: 7, 10. 

Again, it is used in the figurative sense as the symbol of 
oppressive bondage. Isa. ix: 4, and x: 27, "Thou hast broken 
the yoke of his burden," '"^his burden shall be taken away 
from off thy shoulder, and his yoke from off thy neck, and the 
yoke shall be destroyed, because of the anointing.'^ And xiv: 
25, the same; and, xlvii: 6, "upon the ancient hast thou very 
heavily laid thy yoke."' So Jer. ii: 20, and v: 5, and xxvii: 8, 
11, 12, and xxviii: 2, 4, 11, 14, and xxx: 8, Lam. iii: 27, Ezek. 
sxxiv: 27. 

Again, Isa. Iviii: C, the Greek word is used, for one which 
means the bows of the yoke — the bands, or whatever fastens 
the yoke on the neck; and thus is very suitable to express the 
idea of bondage. Thus, it is clear, that to be under the yoke, is 
to be in a state of slavery. To have the yoke broken off is ta be 
made free. This will be admitted by all abolitionists: for they 
use Isa. Iviii: (5, very constantly in their prayers, and I suppose, 
in their arguments: "Is not this the fast that 1 have chosen? to 
loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens; and 
to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke." 

Mr. Moderator, it has been argued on this floor, from this 
very passage, that we arc bound to manumit all the slaves. 
We have here an admission, which might have saved me the 
preceding labor. Ilosvever, it is performed, and you have it. 
You have also the concession of the opposite side, that to be un- 
der the yoke means, to be slaves. Let us keep this. The 
douloi of whom Paul here speaks, our abolition brethren 
^dimit, were slaves. But then whiit will we do with Isaiah? We 
will take his language for just what it means. And it is obvious. 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 65 

at a glance, that the prophet is correcting abuses, in the context 
referred to. As in the days of Nehemiah, the Hebrews had 
gradually disregarded the laws relative to the treatment of 
their slaves: they did not release at the end of the sixth year, 
nor even at the jubilee — they treated their Hebrew servants 
with rigor, contrary to law. These illegal exactions he would 
correct. The law forbid the Hebrew to make his brother serve 
with rigor, this Isaiah would restore — "to loose the bands of 
wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens." The law ordered the 
servant to be set free, of whom the master had broken a tooth, 
or destroyed an eye: this, the prophet enforces, "and to let the 
oppressed — the broken^ as it signifies, go free; — i. e., for his 
eye's or his tooth's sake. The law made all Hebrew slaves free 
at the end of six years; and here the prophet, like Nehemiah, 
enforces the law: "liCt every man, who is entitled by the law, 
to his freedom, go free — break ye off every yoke." To infer 
from the general term '•^ every yoke," that those who were not by 
law entitled to freedom, must obtain it, is not to interpret, but 
to pervert the prophet's language. "Servants obey your mas- 
ters in all things," is Paul's injunction. Now, to infer that 
they are to do things in obedience to man which God has for- 
bidden, is to pervert, and not to interpret Paul. So here, exact- 
ly. To infer from the general term, every yoke, that the proph- 
et means to oblige the Israelite to manumit those servants, whom 
the law expressly says he may keep as servants forever, is not 
to explain Isaiah, but to pervert his obvious intent and meaning. 
Again, the servants in this context are " exhorted to ac- 
count their own masters worthy of all honor ;^^ hence, according 
to the mode of interpretation we refute, the inference must be, 
that they should account these masters worthy of divine worship, 
for this is included in all honor; if every yoke necessarily means 
all slaves absolutely, and all absolutely are commanded by Isaiah 
to be set free; then all honor must include divine reverence and 
adoration, and so these slaves must worship their masters as gods. 
Such absurdities follow from neglect of that canon of interpre- 
tation, which sound criticism and common sense have for ages 
established and deemed incontrovertible, viz: that general terms 



66 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

must be subjected to such restrictions, as the nature of the sub- 
ject and the scope or drift of the writer require. In the pres- 
ent instance, by this rule,o// Ao/tor, means all honor properly be- 
longing to the relation of master and servant, as regulated by 
the laws and reputable usages of the community. So in Isaiah. 
all yokes or every yoke^ means every one, which according to law 
and reputable use, required to be broken off. 

3. INIy third remark on this passage of Timothy is, that 
these douloi under the yoke, are exhorted to account their 
own masters worthy of all honor. The word for masters is des- 
potos — absolute lords. It was before stated that this is a strong 

term. It is used in Simeon's prayer, Luke ii: 29,'^ Lord, now 
Icttest thou thy servant depart in peace." In Acts, iv: 24, * * 
^' Lord, thou art God." Rev. vi: 10, "how long, O Lord;'''' Jude 
iv, "denying the only Lord God," etc. The term properly sig- 
nifies absolute lord or master, and this has its proper correlate in 
doulos, a slave. Now, these despots are to be accounted worthy 
of all honor; and christian slaves are commanded not to des- 
pise their believing masters, but to serve them — to perform the 
part of slaves to them — douleuetosan. Here is the very contra- 
dictory — the exact opposite of abolitionism. Instead of con- 
temning, and despising, and purloining, and running away from 
their masters, as some teach they ought; these slaves are exhorted 
and commanded to respect and love, to abide with and faith- 
fully to serve their despots. 

4. We may observe again, the reason enforcing tliis obe- 
dience and respectful demeanor. It is, that tlie religion of these 
christian slaves may be commended to their masters and to all 
men. Christianity is not a religion of violent civil and political 
revolutions: it never organizes a political part}'. Its interfer- 
ence — rude and violent interference with civil arrangements, 
would cause its author's name to be blasphemed, and his doc- 
trines to be abhorred and rejected. 

5. Timothy is not left at liberty to teach or not to teach 
this doctrine, of the subordination of slaves to their own masters. 
Paul lays it on him peremptorily. "These things teach and ex- 
hort." It is (juite possible that the colonizationists, the only true 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 67 

and efficient friends of the colored race, have fallen behind the 
line of duty in this thing. For love of peace — from an 
earnest desire to avoid violent excitement, we have neglected 
Paul's injunction. We have so held back, as to produce the 
impression upon the minds of the opponents of Paul's doctrine, 
that we felt ourselves at a loss for anything to say in his defence. 
You have seen them in this Synod, daring, and braving, and ban- 
tering us. 

"I am for peace, but vvhen I speak, 
For battle they are keen." 

6. The apostle points out the origin of the opposite teach- 
ing. And here, Mr. Moderator, I am sorry I shall be obliged to 
say some things extremely unpleasant — unpleasant to our breth- 
ren; hard for them to endure, because they will come with blis- 
tering severity — unpleasant for me to uttcr,only because of the 
pain they may occasion; the alienation of affection, the heart- 
burnings and jealousies that will probably follow; not because 
they are uncalled for and avoidable. They are become impe- 
riously necessary. These very brethren have made the issue and 
forced us upon it. Faithfulness to God's word will no longer tole- 
rate mincing and mouthing with great caution. We must ex. 
pound it according to its plain and obvious truth and meaning. 
If the two-edged swo;"d meet with matter to cut, let it cut. If 
a festering ulcer fret and fatten on the body ecclesiastical, let 
the scalpel reach its core, and let tiie probe search its depth. 

I say then, that Paul finds the origin of abolitionism, in the 
vanity, self-conceit, and puffed up pride of the human heart. "If 
any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words," 
etc. Now, to teach otherwise, is to. teach other and opposite 
doctrine, to that which he teaches, viz: that slaves should re- 
spect, love, and serve their own masters. If any man teach 
opposite to these doctrines — if he teach modern anti-slavery 
doctrines, such as abound in their publications and speeches, he 
is telm'photai — proud we have it translated. But I appeal to every 
Greek scholar, if it do not mean vain, puffed tip, f.elf-concdled. 
But I will not trust to Greek scholars only. I will refer you to 
better authority — 1 Tim. iii: 6. Speaking of the qualifications 



68 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

of a bishop, Paul says, he must be, "Not a novice, lest being lifted 
up with pride — luiphothcis — he fall into the condemnation of the 
devil." The word in our text, then, translated "he is proud," 
means such a lifting up with pride, as greatly endangers the per- 
son's falling into the condemnation of the devil. 

Again, 2 Tim. iii: 4, speaking of the last days — the days 
in which we live, Sir, and of the perilous times that shall come, 
he says, "men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, 
boasters, proud * * traitors, heady, high minded, tetuphome- 
noi.'^ Does not this mean, puffed up with vain pride and con- 
temptible self-conceit? 

This form of the word, docs not again occur in the New 
Testament; but nearly the same we have once, Matth. xii: 20, 
" the smoking flax he will not quench," tuphomenon linon. The 
primary idea is taken from the thick vapory smoke, which as- 
cends from damp straw or weeds, when they are kindled with 
fire, but before the flamo acquires strength to consume the foggy 
smoke. How forcibly does this describe the state of a self-con- 
ceited mind, which supposes itself the origin of light, and truth, 
and wisdom; and wrapping itself round and round in the fog and 
smoke of its own vanity, and ascending amid the cloud of its 
own incense, looks down with pity or with scorn, upon the igno- 
rant world below ! 

The history of modern abolitionism, as to its origin, will be 
found to tally with this picture. A vigorous young man was 
refused promotion in the service of the American Colonization 
Society; he became offended, removed to a neighboring city, 
set up an opposition paper, and thus became the father of the 
modern anti-slavery movement. Who the mother may have 
been, it is now difficult to tell. That honor may, perhaps, by a 
little slip of chronology, be conferred on Abby Kelly — at least 
siie is laboriously discharging the duties of a dry nurse. 

7. Let us mark, in the last place, the consequences of a 
system of movements, which has such an origin. Could they 
be expected to be chanicterizcd by meekness, wisdom, humility, 
brotherly kindness, charity? As well might the lamb and the 
kid claim paternity from the hyena and the wolf. But see what 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. ♦ 69 

Paul says: — "Whereof cometh envy, strife, railing, evil surmi- 
sings, perverse dispulings of men of corrupt minds and destitute 
of the truth." To this charge, Mr. Moderator, our brethren, of 
this Synod, on behalf of the original abolitionists — now the 
Garrison and Abby Kelly party — have pleaded guilty. They 
have distinctly admitted the correctness of Paul's prophetic 
representations. But for themselves — and thus far we gladly 
admit the plea — and for the great body of abolitionists, they 
plead not guilty; and attempt to wash their hands of all the 
infidel party's doings. But we must not — whilst we let off our 
brethren individually, and as ministers of God, from the weight 
of this charge — we must not, and we cannot, in faithfulness to 
Paul and to truth, let the abolition movement escape. We con- 
tend, that the infidel abolitionists — the no government men and 
women — the anarchical party ^ are the real, true, and only consis- 
tent anti-slavery men and women. They are the sound logi- 
cians, who have fearlessly followed out the fundamental princi- 
ple of the movement. It were easy to show, that if you once 
admit the simple relation of master and servant, irrcspectiv^e of 
cruelty and abuses, to be in itself sinful, then you must deny the 
morality of a temporary existence of the relation; for if it is a sin 
in itself, it must be so whether it be of long or short duration. 
Surely, if to hold a man in bondage for life — say thirty years — is 
a sin; to hold him ten, five, one year is a sin too. But the re- 
lation of parent and child involves obligations of the latter to 
obey the former; hence, this too, must be abandoned. Next 
goes that of husband and wife- Next, that of civil ruler and 
ruled. The original abolitionists have clearly seen, that all 
these relations are spoken of in the s<ime scriptures that speak 
of master and servant; and they have logically inferred, that 
the arguments which go to make the simple relation a sin, in 
the one, will equally nullify the whole. The infidel abolition. 
ists are the sound reasoners in this case. We therefore hold 
the movement, as a whole, responsible for the horrible result?, 
which our brethren here deplore, equally with us. 

Thus, by six plain passages of Scripture, have I proved the 
Fourth and Fifth propositions — that the New Testament recog- 



70 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

nizes the existence of Slavery; and thai it prescribes the duties 
of servants to their masters, and masters to their servants ; and 
yet, in no instance, does it forbid slaves to obey, or masters to 
retain their slaves : no text commands masters to liberate their 
slaves. 

Let us now hear the conclu;ion of tlie whole scriptural 
argument. I have demonstrated live distinct propositions, in 
regard to the Old Testament, which sec, pp. 41, 42. 

As to the New Testament; I have laid down two distinct 
general propositions, and supported them by five distinct subor- 
dinate ones: — 

I. There is not a sentence in tiie New Testament 
which expressly forbids the having and tiie holding of a 
Slave. 

II. There is not a sentence in the New Testament, 

WHICH, BY FAIR AND JUST INTERPRETATION, ACCORDING TO THE 
RULES OF GRAMMAR, GIVES GROUND FOR THE LOGICAL INFERENCE 
THAT THE SIMPLE HOLDING OF A SLAVE OR SLAVES IS INCONSISTENT 
WITH CHRISTIAN PROFESSION AND CHRISTIAN CHARACTER. 

The five which go to prove the truth of these, arc: — 

I. That the Greek word, doulos, usualhj translated servant, 
properly and commonly means a person held to service jor life — a 
slave. 

This was proved l)y a reference to all the cases of i(s oc- 
currence in the New Testament, by classes; and by its contrast 
with the opposite term, elculhcros — this means y)-ce; doulos is 
the opposite and must mean a slave. 

II. Willi an inference. Paul advises servants to abide qui- 
etly in their condition. This he could not do, if the relation of 
master and servant were, in itself, a sin. 

This was proved and the inference was sustained. 

HI. ^Vitll an inference. The New Testament recognizes 
some masters as good men — true and faithful believers. There- 
fore, the relation of muster and slave, may exist consistently with 
christian character and profession^ 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 71 

IV. The New Testament recognizes the existence of Slavery. 

V. The New Testament prescribes the duties of servants 
to their masters, and of masters to their servants — enjoining obe- 
dience to the one and kind treatment from the other. 

As to these propositions, both relative to the Old and New- 
Testaments, I am aware the practiced logician, may take excep- 
tion on the ground oi form and arrnngcment: he may say, they 
are not always distinct — they overlap in some places. This is 
admitted, and was, perhaps, not wholly avoidable, in an argu- 
ment, designed not exclusively for the practiced rcasoner, but 
mainly for the popular mind. Their truth, however, is the 
main matter; and to this I invite the attention of any who may 
choose to reply. I hope the hrcthrcn will not flinch. ]f any 
man chooses to controvert any one of them, let him do it; not 
"by declaiming against the horrors of slavery, or the impiety 
of asserting that the Bible tolerates it. Let us not have popular 
appeals, but logical, scriptural argument. Let no man content 
himself with a tirade against my inferences; let him come up 
fearlessly to my propositions: if he can refute them, or any of 
them, then, he may shake public confidence in the inferences. 
Until then, they will stand unmoved, in the solid judgment of 
thinking men, whatever excitement may be raised by pathetic 
appeals to human sympathy, and the weaknesses of men and 
women.* 

The inferences which I deduce from the preceding proposi- 
tions, are two, viz: — 

I. According to the Bible a man may stand in the relation 
of a master and hold slaves, and yet be a fair, and reputable, and 
consistent professor of the religion of the Bible, 

II. There is no power on earth — no authority in the church 
to make the holding, or the not holding of a slave, a term of com- 
munion, or condition of admission to the privileges of the church. 

* It is worthy of remark, that although every effort was made, in the 
delivery of this speech in Synod, to invite attention to the above propositions, 
and every thing done which the speaker could think of to provoke the opposi- 
tion to deny them, or any of them; and to bring plain Scripture command to 



72 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

For cruelty to their slaves, in any form — for unkind and 
harsh treatment — for violent nnd abusive language, even mas- 
ters may be censured, and if such offences against the Word of 
God be persevered in, may be suspended and ultimately excom- 
municated. But if a master treats his servants as the Bible 
commands him to do, there is no power in church officers, to cen- 
sure or excommunicate him, simply because he is a master — 
because he holds slaves. Hence, the Corollary \ Whoever as- 
sume and exercise such power, do therein usurp the prejogative 
of the King and Head of the Church, and expose themselves to 
the penalties of such as lord it over God's heritage. Such, vio- 
late a plain precept of God's word: — "Be not many masters;'' 
"neither as being lords over God's heritage." They thrust 
themselves into the throne, and exercise a power, which Christ 
has not granted to the officers of the church; but which he has 
forbidden to be exercised. They become, themselves, the usurp- 
ing despots and make the freemen of God their slaves. 

You see, Mr. Moderator, I proceed upon the principle, 
that the King in Zion, only, can settle the terms or conditions of 
admission to membership in his visible kingdom. If any man 
deny this, I cannot here enter into controversy with him. But, 
assuming this as indubitably true, the corollary follows, by an 
inevitable logical necessity. 

What then have we gained by tliis whole argument? 
Simply this — that slavery — the relation of master and slave — 
not, you will observe, any violence; not any cruel treatment; 
but simply the relation^ is tolerated in the Holy Scriptures. I 
have not said, the Bible sanctions it — the Bible commands it. 
except in the case of forfeiture of liberty by crime. But the 

masters, to liberate their slaves, not one of the propositions was denied by anj 
speaker, and no man ever asserted tiiat tiie Bible commands masters to free 
their slaves. A speech of about six and a half hours was delivered, chiefly in 
direct reply to this, yet no attempt was made to disprove one of the points 
taken, nor was one of them directly denied; nor was it pretended by any of 
the speakers that the Bible commands masters to manumit their slaves, nor 
was their inability to do any of these things manfully acknowledged by any of 
the brethren. 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 73 

Bible permits it: no where docs it command masters to manumit 
tiieir slaves. 

This, Mr. Moderator, some of our brethren have found 
themselves too honest hearted to deny. Some have fully admit- 
ted it. One excellent brother, seeing no room for denial, 
proceeded to argue thus against me, admitting the position I 
have elaborated, as true. What if the Bible of old did tolerate 
slavery? Does it hence follow that it must be tolerated now? 
The Bible tolerated polygamy. Here is a parallel case, and 
you will be obliged by this argument to tolerate this evil. The 
Hebrews held slaves, and were, notwithstanding, members of 
God's church; hence it is inferred, christians may hold slaves, 
and yet be, and continue members of God's church. But, said 
our good brother, the temper of whose steel I understand, and 
can therefore make free to try its edge, if this argument is good 
for the toleration of slavery, it is also good for the toleration of 
polygamy. For the Hebrews often had a pluraltity of wives 
and concubines, and v/ere, notwithstanding, accounted reputable 
members of the church: consequently, christians may indulge 
in polygamy and yet occupy a reputable standing in the 
church. 

Such was the brother's argument, as I think every one in 
the house must have understood it; and, I admit, it is very 
plausible and would be conclusive; if he would prove one thing, 
viz: that polygamy is tolerated in the New Testament. Then 
the cases would be exactly analogous. But exact similarity is 
indispensable to truth and safety, in an analogical argument: 
and therefore, until it shall be shown, that polygamy existed and 
was not forbidden, in the New Testament; as I have shown that 
slavery existed and was not forbidden, the argument is not a 
tripod; it is only a biped; and a stool cannot stand on two legs. 
But this postulatum necessarium — this indispensable point, cannot 
be sustained; for it is the reverse of truth. The New Testa- 
ment prohibits polygamy. Mark x: 6 — 8, "But from the 
beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. 
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and 
cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so, then, 
they are no more twain, but one flesh." Here is a prohibition. 



74 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

not only of causeless divorce, but of polygamy. A man can 
have but one wife, says the Redeemer; and this is the original 
law of man's creation. Moses tolerated your departures from 
this law " for the hardness of your hearts;" but now the original 
law is placed before you. Accordingly, wherever the duties of 
husbands arc spoken of, there can be found no recognition of 
two or more wives to one husband, " for the husband is the 
head of ihe roife. Let every one so love his ivife^ even as him- 
self, and the wife see that she reverence her husband" — Eph. 
v: 23. Always, one only is implied. But again, 1. Tim. iii: 2, 
describing the qualifications of a bishop, Paul says, he must be 
" the husband of one wife" — and so, ver. 12, " Let the deacons 
be the husbands of one wife." So Tit. i: G. * * "the 
husband of one wife." Now these show, that polygamy had, 
been tolerated, but now is no longer to be tolerated. It is 
censured as a disqualification for any office in the church. No 
matter what qualifications otherwise, a man may have for office, 
if he have more than one wife, he is excluded from oflice. 
Now, let our Anti-Slavery brethren produce us a declaration 
of Our Redeemer, to this amount, that Slavery, which Moses 
tolerated, is not any longer to be tolerated, that no slave holder 
shall be a deacon, a presbyter, or a bishop. Let them do this 
and their analogical argument is good, and we will abandon the 
defence. Thus, we shut them in. 

But some brethren in the opposition, seem to mc, ISIr. 
Moderatoi', to have gone somewhat farther toward giving up the 
ship. Did not your ear catch an argument to this amount? 
"It is not slavery in the abstract we oppose — we disregard 
abstractions. We oppose slavery as it exists in these United 
States. This we say is a sin, and against this we lift up our 
voice, and would have this Synod to condemn it. Let abstract 
relations go to the wall, but let us attack the actual, living reali- 
ty.*' Surely sir, you heard this. Well, what is its concession? 
Does it not concede their inability to occupy a foothold on the 
ground of the civil, social relation of master and slave? Does 
it not concede that they are able only to assault the abuses, "the 
cruelty, and tyranny, and oppression, so oflen connected with it." 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 75 

I think one prominent debater admitted, in so many words, that 
he would not, or could not contend against the abstract relation; 
but against the practical sjsten), he felt able and determined to 
contend. Well, if they abandon the principle in dispute, let 
us for a moment look at the practical argument. 

Allow me to state it in full logical form, viz: — All things 
which involve many great and crying moral evils, ought im- 
mediately to be abandoned and abolished. 

But slavery, as it exists and is practiced in the United 
States, involves many great and crying moral evils. 

Therefore, Slavery, as it exists and is practiced in the 
United States, ought immediately to be abandoned and abo- 
lished. 

Is not this the pith and substance of all their arguments? 
And who will point out one logical defect about it? Notwith- 
standing its plausibility, let us apply the argument to other 
social relations, and see how it will work. 

Marriage, or the relation of husband and wife, as it exists 
and is practiced in the United States, involves many great and 
crying moral evils; therefore it ought to be immediately 
abandoned and abolished. Is not this identically the same 
argument? Does it not rest on the same major, viz: all things 
which involve great and crying moral evils, ought to l>e imme- 
diately abandoned and abolished. ' Do you not admit the 
expressed minor? Can any man deny that husbands and wives, 
in the United States, do often quarrel and wrangle in the very 
matters of duty belonging to the relation? Is there no hellish 
jealousy, no open abuse of powei-, no violent treatment, no 
abandonment, no horrid murder committed? Clearly the minor 
is true and the conclusion inevitable. 

Again, the parental relation as it exists, and is practiced 
in the United States, involves many great and crying moral 
evils; therefore, it ought to be immediately abandoned and 
abolished. Most assuredly, harsh, unkind treatment, violent 
beating, resulting in death sometimes — lessons of impurity, 
even to compulsory prostitution; and all the natural results — 
lying, swearing, stealing, quarrelUng, drunkenness — all these 



76 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

are involved in, and brought about bj the parental relation: 
the conclusion is logical, it ought to be immediately abolished. 

Yet again, civil government, as it exists and is practiced 
in the United States, involves many great and crying moral 
evils; therefore it ought to be immediately abandoned and 
abolished. Docs any man deny tiie minor? Will any man 
say, there are no moral abominations practiced in our govern- 
ment and our politics? Are fraud and villany no moral evils? Are 
perjury and falsehood no moral evils? Are slander and defama- 
tion no moral evils? Are stabbing, and dirking, and shooting 
men, — with all the blasphemous language which usually accom- 
panies such things — are these no moral evils? You see, sir, the 
conclusion closes in upon us: — our civil government ought to be 
immediately abandoned and abolislied. 

Examine every one of these, and see whether there be any 
difference in their construction. Persuaded I am, no man, 
who understands what an argument is, will deny their exact 
similarity — their logical identity. But will our brethren take 
the conclusions? If not, will they be so good as to point out 
the fallacy, in their own argument? or so candid as to admit 
its existence? 

The fallacy here, is in one term, and springs from the 
accident. "All things which znro/cc moral evils." Slavery in- 
volves moral evils. Things may be involved necessarily or 
accidentally. Blue paper involves arsenic; not necessarily, but 
only contingently. Arsenic involves a poisonous quality, not 
contingently but necessarily. Anger involves moral evil, not 
necessarily, but only contingently. ''Be ye angry and sin not." 
Murder involves moral evil, not contingently, but necessarily. 
Thus you see, that before you can draw the conclusion, that 
our civil government ought to be immediately abolished, you 
must prove that it necessarily involves villany, perjury, faslehood. 
etc. But that these evils arc separable, at least in a high 
degree, from it, must be admitted, and therefore the conclusion 
is not correct. 

Before you can infer, that the parental relation ought to 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 77 

be immediately abolished, you must prove, that it necessarily 
involves the evils of cruelty, etc. 

Before you can infer, that marriage ought to be immedi- 
ately abolished, you must prove that it necessarily involves 
jealousy, angry contention and murder. 

Before you can infer, that slavery ought to be immediately 
abolished, you must prove that it necessarily involves many 
great and crying moral evils. If these are contingent and 
avoidable, the inference is illogical; it springs from the fallacy 
of the accident. 

But there is another question to be met, before you can 
infer that our government ought to be abolished. Be it even 
conceded, that all the evils enumerated are not avoidable, that 
some cannot, in the present state of human nature, be entirely 
remedied; will it even then follow, that civil government ought 
to be abolished? Certainly not. The previous question is, 
would the abolition of our government, because some evils 
involved in it are unavoidable, be a removal of these evils and 
involve fewer? Unless this can be answered affirmatively, 
clearly the inference against it is illogical. So, were it proved, 
that all the evils involved in American Slavery, are not avoida- 
ble, but some are necessarily involved; still it will not follow, 
that it ought at once to be abolished, unless it can be shown 
that this abolition would remove the remaining evils, and not 
introduce greater. 

We have been told, the golden rule, "love thy neighbor as 
thyself — all things whatsoever ye would that men should do 
unto you, do ye even so unto them," makes directly against the 
very existence of slavery, and leads to immediate abolition. 
But the direct reverse of the latter is true. The golden rule 
will not suffer immediate abolition, except in the special cases, 
where the slaves are at the time in a capacity and circumstances 
in which freedom would be a real benefit to them. To turn 
out slaves into the kind of freedom which they enjoy — rather 
which they endure and suffer in our Free States, of Ohio, Penn- 
sylvania; New York — with the habits, the education, the igno- 
rance of men and business which they mostly labor under, would 



78 THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATIONAL UNION 

be to act a cruel part, directly in opposition to the Savior's golden 
rule. No man but a fool would wish to be thus set free. No, 
Mr. Moderator, the man into whose hands Divine Providence 
has thrown any of his fellow men in this form, is bound by 
every tie that can bind the soul of man, not to set them free, 
until he can do it to their advantage. He may feel them a 
heavy burden — a charge weighty and difficult to manage; but 
he is bound, by God's authority, to sustain the charge, to endure 
the labor of caring for them, making them work, feeding, 
clothing and instructing them, and thus fitting them for the 
lase of freedom, and so leading on to that result, whenever it 
can be done consistently with the highest interests of the com- 
Kiunity. The opposite doctrine is radicalism and leads to the 
subversion of all order and law. We have a sample of it often 
in the treatment of children. Some parents take no control 
over their children. They are too indolent, and have too little 
conscience to feel the obligation to rule their household. Their 
children enjoy a vast amount of liberty — that is, of reckless 
criminality — freedom from ail restraints; and of course they 
become the pests of society, and ultimately the inmates of 
penitentiaries and candidates for the gibbet. But God's law 
requires and commands parents to rule their children. They 
have no right to set them free, until they are first educated and 
fitted to provide for themselves. So masters are bound to keep 
their servants in bondage until they are fitted to be free. Im- 
mediate abolition would be, in almost all cases, a gross viola- 
tion of the universal law of love. 

But let us return to the conclusion furnished by the scriptu- 
ral argument. Slavery is tolerated in the bible — it is not made 
a term of communion by the King of Zion. Consequently, the 
officers of his church have no power to make it a term of com- 
munion. Here is the doctrine for which we contend, and by 
this we hope to save this fair land from being deluged in the 
blood of its inhabitants, and this free nation from the chains of 
servitude to European despots. 

Should the opposite doctrine prevail — should the holding 
of slaves be made a crime, by the officers of the churches; the 



vs. ABOLITIONISM. 79 

non-slaveholding States, should thcj break communion with their 
Southern brethren, and denounce them as guilty of damning sin, 
as kidnappers and menstealers, as worthy of the penitentiary, 
as has been done here in this Synod — should this doctrine and 
this practice prevail throughout the Northern States, can any 
man be so blind as not to see, that a dissolution of the Union — 
a civil, and perhaps a servile war, must be the consequence? 
Such a war as the world has never witnessed — a war of uncom- 
promising extermination, that will lay waste this vast territory, 
and leave the despotic powers of Europe exulting over the fall 
of the Republic? All the elements are here — the physical, the 
intellectual, the moral — elements for a strife, different in the 
horribleness of its character, from anything the world has ever 
witnessed. Let the spirits of these men be only once aroused; 
let their feelings be only once chafed up to the fighting point; 
let the irritation only be kept up until the North and the South 
come to blows on the question of slavery, their " contentions will 
be as the bars of a castle," — broken only with the last pulsa- 
tions of a nation's heart. 

On the contrary, let the opposite doctrine prevail and the 
practices which necessarily flow from it — let the north pity their 
Southern brethren who are afflicted with slavery; let the cliurch- 
es of the North deal kindly and truly with the Soutii; let them 
continue to recognize and treat them as christians, and entreat 
them, and urg;c them to give unto their servants that which is just 
and equal, to treat them as christian brethren; let them aid them 
in the splendid scheme of colonization; let them seek union, 
and peace, and love, and they will not seek in vain. Thus, the 
integrity of the nation will be maintained. The happiness of 
the colored race will, in the highest degree, be promoted, in the 
land of their fathers. God will be glorified in the triumphant 
success of free, republican America. 



54 V 







'^MrS 










V f.o*.c^ij^.% .**\-.;;^.v fP^^.-^iL-.^ 



lPr^^ 



a5°^ 










''>'^%*' 



*W* .♦< 
















o « t ' 



^°-'^.. V 






K**' -o^^^-/ \-^^\/. "o^'^^^o' 




*-./ 






%.^" 
















^ov^ 







"^bv^ 













%/ .*^fe\ \/ -'^VaV *^ .* 




